發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-26 11:17

  本文選題：具體危險(xiǎn)犯 + 抽象危險(xiǎn)犯�。� 參考：《蘭州大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：刑法中的“足以”型危險(xiǎn)犯,是指在刑法條文中規(guī)定只有當(dāng)行為“足以”造成某種實(shí)害的結(jié)果或危險(xiǎn),才構(gòu)成犯罪的六種情形,即破壞交通工具罪、破壞交通設(shè)施罪、生產(chǎn)、銷售不符合安全標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的食品罪、生產(chǎn)、銷售不符合標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的醫(yī)用器材罪、非法采集、供應(yīng)血液、制作、供應(yīng)血液制品罪和運(yùn)送他人偷越國(guó)(邊)境罪的法定刑升格條件第二項(xiàng)。刑法理論上通常將該類型的危險(xiǎn)犯定性為具體危險(xiǎn)犯。近年來(lái),隨著學(xué)者們重新審視危險(xiǎn)犯的分類,發(fā)現(xiàn)刑法條文中含有“足以”條款的犯罪,既不同于典型的具體危險(xiǎn)犯,又有異于典型的抽象危險(xiǎn)犯。因此,對(duì)把“足以”作為具體危險(xiǎn)犯標(biāo)志的危險(xiǎn)犯二分理論提出了質(zhì)疑,并探索對(duì)“足以”型危險(xiǎn)犯進(jìn)行合理定性的理論基礎(chǔ),這些理論對(duì)于“足以”型危險(xiǎn)犯定性的分歧,主要表現(xiàn)在對(duì)“足以”條款的認(rèn)識(shí)上。而且司法實(shí)務(wù)中也沒(méi)有統(tǒng)一的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來(lái)判斷行為是否滿足刑法條文規(guī)定的“足以”條款,造成同案不同判現(xiàn)象的時(shí)有發(fā)生,這對(duì)司法的權(quán)威性及公信力造成極大的威脅。為解決“足以”型危險(xiǎn)犯在理論定性上的分歧與司法實(shí)踐中存在的問(wèn)題,有必要對(duì)該類型的犯罪進(jìn)行深入研究。本文以實(shí)踐中的判例為引入,對(duì)學(xué)者們的理論觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)行了比較分析,從而選擇了其中較合理的適格犯(足以犯)理論作為“足以”型危險(xiǎn)犯的理論基礎(chǔ),對(duì)“足以”型危險(xiǎn)犯進(jìn)行理論定性。而對(duì)于本類型犯罪中“足以”條款判定方法的選擇,本文對(duì)學(xué)者們關(guān)于“危險(xiǎn)”判斷學(xué)說(shuō)的優(yōu)點(diǎn)進(jìn)行了借鑒,在此基礎(chǔ)上選擇了本文所主張的“應(yīng)以事后查明的行為時(shí)存在的與行為有關(guān)的客觀事實(shí)為判斷材料,站在行為時(shí)的立場(chǎng),根據(jù)一般人的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來(lái)進(jìn)行判斷,但根據(jù)一般人的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)認(rèn)為行為不具有‘足以’的危險(xiǎn)性,而根據(jù)科學(xué)因果法則認(rèn)為行為具有‘足以’的危險(xiǎn)性時(shí),以科學(xué)的因果法則為標(biāo)準(zhǔn),并同時(shí)考察是否存在阻礙危險(xiǎn)變成現(xiàn)實(shí)的否定因素及行為人對(duì)于不防止實(shí)害發(fā)生主觀上是否至少存在過(guò)失”,并將該判斷方法運(yùn)用到具體的案例中,以檢驗(yàn)該判斷方法的合理性。
[Abstract]:The "sufficient" type of dangerous crime in the criminal law means that only when the act is "sufficient" to cause a certain result or danger of actual harm can it constitute a crime, that is, the crime of destroying means of transport, the crime of destroying traffic facilities, and the crime of production. The crime of selling food that does not meet the safety standard, the crime of producing and selling medical equipment that does not conform to the standard, the crime of illegally collecting, supplying, producing, supplying blood products and the legal penalty of transporting others to cross the border of the country (border), item 2. In theory, the criminal law usually regards this type of dangerous crime as a specific dangerous crime. In recent years, as scholars re-examine the classification of dangerous crimes, it is found that the crimes which contain "sufficient" clauses in the articles of criminal law are not only different from typical concrete dangerous crimes, but also different from the typical abstract dangerous crimes. Therefore, the dichotomy theory of "sufficient" as a sign of specific dangerous crime is questioned, and the theoretical basis of reasonable qualitative analysis of "sufficient" type of dangerous crime is explored, which is different from that of "sufficient" type of dangerous crime. It is mainly manifested in the understanding of the "sufficient" clause. Moreover, there is no uniform standard in judicial practice to judge whether the behavior meets the "sufficient" clause stipulated in the articles of criminal law, which causes the phenomenon of different judgments in the same case to occur from time to time, which poses a great threat to the authority and credibility of the judicature. In order to solve the theoretical and qualitative differences and the problems in judicial practice, it is necessary to conduct a thorough study on this type of crime. Based on the practical case law, this paper makes a comparative analysis of the scholars' theoretical viewpoints, and selects the more reasonable theory of "sufficient offence" as the theoretical basis of the "sufficient" type of dangerous crime. The theoretical characterization of the "sufficient" type of dangerous crime is carried out. As for the choice of the "sufficient" clause in this type of crime, this article draws lessons from the merits of the scholars' judgment theory of "danger". On this basis, the author chooses the "objective facts related to the behavior which exist in the course of the subsequent investigation" as the judgment material, stands on the standpoint of the behavior, and makes the judgment according to the standard of the general person. But when an act is not considered to be 'sufficient' by the standard of the average person, and if the act is considered to be 'sufficient' according to the scientific law of causation, the scientific law of causation is the criterion. At the same time, the author examines whether there are negative factors that prevent the danger from becoming a reality and whether the perpetrator has at least the subjective fault to prevent the actual harm ", and applies the judgment method to the concrete case. To test the reasonableness of the judgment method.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：蘭州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張志鋼;;“未遂犯是危險(xiǎn)犯”命題否定論[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2016年06期

2 黃禮登;;危險(xiǎn)犯的第三類型探析[J];光華法學(xué);2016年01期

3 陸詩(shī)忠;;論抽象危險(xiǎn)犯理論研究中的若干認(rèn)識(shí)誤區(qū)[J];河南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2016年03期

4 黃麗勤;;論“足以危害公共安全”的實(shí)行行為屬性[J];同濟(jì)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2015年06期

5 蕭宏宜;;風(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì)與刑事立法[J];遼寧大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2015年06期

6 陳洪兵;;準(zhǔn)抽象危險(xiǎn)犯概念之提倡[J];法學(xué)研究;2015年05期

7 黃悅;;從危險(xiǎn)概念看不能犯的判斷[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2015年04期

8 李川;;適格犯的特征與機(jī)能初探——兼論危險(xiǎn)犯第三類型的發(fā)展譜系[J];政法論壇;2014年05期

9 魏東;;論生產(chǎn)、銷售不符合安全標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的食品罪之客觀方面要件——基于刑法解釋的保守性立場(chǎng)之分析研討[J];法治研究;2014年09期

10 付立慶;;應(yīng)否允許抽象危險(xiǎn)犯反證問(wèn)題研究[J];法商研究;2013年06期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 黨日紅;羅猛 ;蔣朝政;;危害公共健康犯罪：中法日立法模式比較[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2010年

，

本文編號(hào)：1937032