本文選題：先行行為 + 作為義務(wù)來(lái)源��； 參考：《復(fù)旦大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：先行行為能夠成為不純正不作為犯罪的義務(wù)來(lái)源,已是刑法不作為犯罪體系中的通說(shuō)。隨著對(duì)先行行為理論研究的加深,學(xué)者們的觀點(diǎn)隨之出現(xiàn)了很多分歧,這其中比較有代表性的問(wèn)題有,產(chǎn)生作為義務(wù)的來(lái)源的先行行為,其存在的合理性是什么?先行行為的成立條件有哪些?先行行為的范圍外延等等諸多問(wèn)題。為了解答這些問(wèn)題,本文翻閱了大量的書籍和查閱了以往的研究資料,借鑒比教學(xué)的研究方法,對(duì)于探析先行行為理論展開了詳細(xì)的論述,全文的寫作結(jié)構(gòu)是總分式,一共四章,每一章都針對(duì)一個(gè)問(wèn)題進(jìn)行整體的總結(jié)和歸納。現(xiàn)做如下分析：第一章為“不作為犯先行行為概述”。第一節(jié)是簡(jiǎn)述先行行為,通過(guò)學(xué)術(shù)界對(duì)先行行為的定義,指出在先行為與其產(chǎn)生的義務(wù)密不可分,其次通過(guò)先行行為的歷史沿革指出了其發(fā)展趨勢(shì),最后通過(guò)介紹先行行為在我國(guó)的發(fā)展現(xiàn)狀,點(diǎn)明先行行為理論在刑法意義上的價(jià)值。第二章為“先行行為成為作為義務(wù)的理論依據(jù)”。先行行為到底能否產(chǎn)生作為義務(wù)?產(chǎn)生作為義務(wù)的根據(jù)是什么?國(guó)內(nèi)理論界有兩種相反的聲音：肯定說(shuō)和否定說(shuō)。前者又細(xì)分為道德根據(jù)說(shuō)和法律根據(jù)說(shuō)。通過(guò)對(duì)上述學(xué)說(shuō)的深度分析,作者認(rèn)同道德根據(jù)說(shuō)的觀點(diǎn),承認(rèn)先行行為作為義務(wù)的實(shí)質(zhì)上是道德義務(wù),是最低限度的道德。最后,探討了先行行為與其他三種作為義務(wù)來(lái)源的關(guān)系,指出四種義務(wù)來(lái)源既相互依存又相互排斥。第三章為“先行行為產(chǎn)生作為義務(wù)的條件”。先行行為的成立需要具備哪些因素是學(xué)術(shù)界長(zhǎng)期存在的話題。作者從四個(gè)方面給出了答案,先行行為首先是由本人做出的,不能是第三人的行為,更不是所有的在場(chǎng)人員。其次先行行為一要造成法律禁止的危險(xiǎn)狀態(tài),二要對(duì)該危害后果存在直接性的因果關(guān)系。最后,先行行為人排除該危險(xiǎn)要具備主客觀的救助能力。第四章為“先行行為的范圍”。該部分是全文的重點(diǎn)和落腳點(diǎn),第一節(jié)討論的主要問(wèn)題是先行行為的違法性是否影響其產(chǎn)生作為義務(wù)。由于實(shí)踐中頻發(fā)的合法行為造成當(dāng)事人的危害后果的案例,筆者認(rèn)為此時(shí)的合法行為與危險(xiǎn)狀態(tài)之間具有因果關(guān)系,因此先行行為包含部分正當(dāng)行為。第二節(jié)針對(duì)犯罪行為與先行行為二者的關(guān)系,探討了其構(gòu)成犯罪的內(nèi)在屬性,作者從犯罪的兩個(gè)主觀方面,即故意和過(guò)失的角度將犯罪行為分成兩大類,分別進(jìn)行解釋,認(rèn)為先行行為不排斥犯罪行為。第三節(jié)是關(guān)于不作為能不能成立先行行為。犯罪的本質(zhì)特點(diǎn)之一是應(yīng)受刑罰處罰,由于不作為引起的危害歸根到底還是因?yàn)樽鳛?所以只有作為行為才能成立先行行為。最后一節(jié)是關(guān)于有責(zé)性對(duì)于先行行為的影響。作者指出法律評(píng)價(jià)的結(jié)果與作為義務(wù)本身是兩個(gè)層次的問(wèn)題,不能相混淆,二者沒有必然的聯(lián)系。因此,無(wú)責(zé)行為在一定條件下也可以產(chǎn)生作為義務(wù)。
[Abstract]:The antecedent act can become the obligation source of the crime of nonfeasance, and it is the general theory in the criminal law system of omission. With the deepening of the research on the theory of antecedent behavior, there are many differences in the viewpoints of the scholars. Among them, the representative problem is, what is the rationality of the existence of the antecedent behavior as the source of the obligation? What are the conditions for the establishment of antecedents? The scope extension of antecedents and so on. In order to answer these questions, this paper looks through a large number of books and previous research materials, draws lessons from the research method of comparative teaching, and discusses in detail the theory of the antecedent behavior. The writing structure of the full text is a general formula. A total of four chapters, each chapter for a problem for the overall summary and induction. This paper makes the following analysis: the first chapter is an overview of the behavior of omission in advance. The first section is a brief introduction of antecedent behavior. Through the definition of antecedent act in academic circles, the author points out that the preemptive act is inextricably related to its obligations, and then points out its developing trend through the historical evolution of antecedent behavior. Finally, by introducing the present situation of the advance act in our country, the author points out the value of the theory of the leading act theory in the criminal law. The second chapter is the theoretical basis of the first act as an obligation. Can the first act produce the obligation of action? What is the basis on which the obligation arises? There are two opposing voices in the domestic theoretical circle: affirmative and negative. The former is subdivided into moral basis and legal basis. Through the deep analysis of the above theories, the author agrees with the viewpoint of moral basis, and concedes that the first act is essentially a moral obligation and a minimum moral. Finally, the relationship between the antecedent behavior and the other three sources of obligation is discussed, and it is pointed out that the four sources of obligation are interdependent and mutually exclusive. The third chapter is "the condition that the antecedent act produces as obligation". What factors need to be possessed in the establishment of antecedents is a long-standing topic in academic circles. The author gives the answer from four aspects: the first action is made by oneself, not the behavior of the third party, not all the people present. Secondly, the antecedent act should cause the dangerous state prohibited by law, and have a direct causality to the harmful consequence. Finally, the actor must have subjective and objective ability to rescue the danger. The fourth chapter is the scope of antecedents. In the first section, the main problem is whether the illegality of antecedents affects the obligation to act. Due to the case of the harmful consequences caused by the frequent legal act in practice, the author thinks that there is a causal relationship between the lawful act and the dangerous state at this time, so the antecedent behavior includes some legitimate acts. The second section aims at the relationship between the criminal behavior and the antecedent behavior, discusses the intrinsic attribute of its constitution crime, the author divides the criminal behavior into two categories from two subjective aspects of the crime, that is, intentional and negligent, and explains it separately. It is believed that the advance act does not exclude the criminal act. The third section is about whether omission can be established as a leading act. One of the essential characteristics of crime is that it should be punished by penalty. Because the harm caused by omission is still caused by act in the final analysis, only act as a leading act can be established. The last section deals with the impact of accountability on proactive behavior. The author points out that the result of legal evaluation and the obligation to act are two levels of problems which can not be confused and there is no necessary connection between them. Therefore, the act of non-liability can also produce the obligation of action under certain conditions.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：復(fù)旦大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 屈耀倫;論不作為犯中的先行行為[J];甘肅政法成人教育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2001年03期

，

本文編號(hào)：1862894