本文選題：徇私舞弊 + 瀆職犯罪�。� 參考：《山東大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：徇私舞弊型瀆職犯罪之認(rèn)定的疑難問(wèn)題比較多,核心問(wèn)題是訴訟可證性差。究其原因,一是“徇私舞弊”作為法律概念,其涵義和性質(zhì)模糊不清；二是“徇私舞弊”作為構(gòu)成要件,對(duì)其法律地位缺乏明確的判斷及認(rèn)定。尤其對(duì)“徇私舞弊”性質(zhì)的界定爭(zhēng)議頗大,在徇私舞弊是否屬于定罪的構(gòu)成要件要素,以及若屬于構(gòu)成要件要素時(shí)是主觀方面的構(gòu)成要件要素還是客觀方面的構(gòu)成要件要素等方面都沒(méi)有達(dá)成一致。筆者在文中對(duì)不同觀點(diǎn)一一作了闡述,同時(shí)結(jié)合自身從事瀆職犯罪偵查工作的司法實(shí)際,從有利于司法適用的角度提出了自己的觀點(diǎn),并且重點(diǎn)就如何解決此類(lèi)犯罪的現(xiàn)實(shí)司法困境作了詳細(xì)論述。本文分為三大部分。第一部分提出了徇私舞弊型瀆職犯罪訴訟可證性差的難題,分析了查辦徇私舞弊型瀆職犯罪的現(xiàn)實(shí)困境,并總結(jié)了造成這一困境的原因,有針對(duì)性地提出了問(wèn)題解決的路徑選擇。第二部分論證了解決徇私舞弊型瀆職犯罪訴訟可證性差這一問(wèn)題的具體方法,即三個(gè)認(rèn)定原則：行為人明知原則、犯罪故意行為化原則以及客觀事實(shí)認(rèn)定原則。筆者結(jié)合具體案例,分別從刑法解釋學(xué)、犯罪構(gòu)成理論、行為理論、證據(jù)法學(xué)的角度對(duì)理論界和實(shí)務(wù)界關(guān)于徇私舞弊含義及性質(zhì)的不同理解和認(rèn)識(shí)進(jìn)行列舉分析,最終提出了徇私舞弊應(yīng)當(dāng)屬于犯罪客觀方面及主觀方面的構(gòu)成要件要素的觀點(diǎn)。第三部分為全面解決司法實(shí)踐中徇私舞弊型瀆職犯罪訴訟可證性差的的問(wèn)題,提出了認(rèn)定原則的適用例外及理論補(bǔ)充,主要針對(duì)此類(lèi)犯罪涉及到受賄犯罪及其他犯罪的情況時(shí),具體應(yīng)當(dāng)采用的罪數(shù)認(rèn)定以及處斷原則。
[Abstract]:There are many difficult problems in the identification of malfeasance for favoritism. The reason is that "favoritism and malpractice" is a legal concept, the meaning and nature of which is ambiguous, and "favoritism and malpractice" as a constituent element lacks a clear judgment and determination of its legal status. In particular, the definition of the nature of "favoritism and malpractice" is quite controversial. Whether favoritism is a constituent element of a conviction, There is no agreement on whether the elements are subjective elements or objective elements. At the same time, combining with the judicial practice of the investigation of malfeasance, the author puts forward his own viewpoint from the point of view of judicial application. And focus on how to solve the practical judicial dilemma of such crimes made a detailed discussion. This paper is divided into three parts. The first part puts forward the difficult problem that the lawsuit of malfeasance for favoritism and malfeasance is poor, analyzes the practical predicament of investigating the crime of malfeasance for favoritism, and sums up the reasons for this dilemma. The path choice of problem solving is put forward. The second part demonstrates the solution to the problem of malfeasance of favoritism and malfeasance, namely three principles: the principle of knowing the perpetrator, the principle of intentional crime and the principle of objective fact. Combining with specific cases, the author enumerates and analyzes the different understanding and understanding of the meaning and nature of favoritism in theory and practice from the angle of criminal hermeneutics, criminal constitution theory, behavior theory and evidence law. Finally, the author points out that favoritism and malpractice should belong to the elements of objective and subjective aspects of the crime. The third part is to solve the problem of poor proof of malfeasance for favoritism and malfeasance in judicial practice, and puts forward the application exception and theoretical supplement of the principle of cognizance, which is mainly aimed at the situation that this kind of crime involves bribery and other crimes. The specific number of crimes should be determined and the principle of adjudication.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D924.3

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 李鎮(zhèn);論徇私舞弊型瀆職犯罪之認(rèn)定[D];山東大學(xué);2015年

，

本文編號(hào)：1924781