本文選題：其他危險方法 + 公共安全��； 參考：《西南財經(jīng)大學》2016年碩士論文

【摘要】：進入二十一世紀以來,社會更加復雜多變,人們的生活可以說是發(fā)生了翻天覆地的變化,風險與機遇之間的關系更加密不可分�？萍嫉倪M步,在帶來機會的同時,也帶來了巨大的風險。例如,幾年前發(fā)生的“三聚氰胺”事件依然讓媽媽們心有余悸,“毒血旺”的味道依舊縈繞舌尖,以及孫偉銘等醉酒駕車案、私拉電網(wǎng)案等都給公共安全帶來威脅。也正是由于這些危害公共安全的犯罪案件屢屢見諸報端,頻繁的進入老百姓的視野,讓許多不懂法的人都知道了“以危險方法危害公共安全罪”。然而司法實踐對這些案件的處理卻引發(fā)了很大爭議,因為當現(xiàn)行法律不能對一些新興的犯罪手段進行有效的規(guī)制時,司法機關往往在束手無策之時就會想起刑法第114和115條,并對其做擴大解釋,以便將這些新興犯罪囊括其中,實現(xiàn)打擊犯罪、安撫民心的目的。因此不僅是刑法學界,就連普通民眾都開始對本罪產(chǎn)生興趣。筆者認為,不能否認司法機關的做法確實產(chǎn)生了一定的效果,但是其也有違背罪刑法定主義之嫌。學界也多次發(fā)聲指責司法機關隨意解釋法律的行為,并對如何解決本罪適用問題提出了自己的看法。包括如何解釋本罪犯罪客體——公共安全,以及如何限定“其他危險方法”的范圍。然而盡管學界對這兩個方面的問題做了很多的努力,但依然沒有平息爭議,尤其是對“其他危險方法”的界定。我認為之所以會這樣的原因,是因為前輩們的研究都只解決了“癥狀”,而沒有治“病源”,而之所以沒有治“病源”則與我國當下刑法學界對犯罪構成屬性的認識存在差異息息相關,忽視了在工業(yè)社會的大背景下,我們應該堅持罪刑法定原則,對犯罪構成做事實上、形式上的的理解,而不應該做價值上、實質(zhì)的理解。本文的創(chuàng)作初衷就在于牢牢堅守犯罪事實體系的靈魂,以犯罪構成符合性為基礎,始終貫徹罪刑法定原則和主客觀相統(tǒng)一原則,主張在認定犯罪時只能以事實為入罪的標準,例外的價值補充入罪為輔助,這也是本文的一個創(chuàng)新之處。以期達到限制刑法114和115條中的“其他危險方法”的外延。本文除去引言和結語以外,共分為五個部分,主要內(nèi)容提要如下：第一部分是理論與實踐現(xiàn)狀引發(fā)的思考,對理論研究現(xiàn)狀的論述,主要從“病源”和“病癥”兩個方面進行探討�！安≡础本褪欠缸飿嫵傻呐袛鄻藴实倪x擇,指出在刑法學界存在兩種不同的觀點,一種是認為對犯罪構成的判斷應該是事實判斷,一種認為對犯罪構成的判斷應該是價值判斷。前者認為構成要件是形式的,因此對犯罪是否成立應該嚴格按照構成要件做事實的判斷；后者則以立法過程就是一個價值判斷的過程為由,認為犯罪構成本身就是價值的,因此對犯罪成立應做價值的判斷,即以社會危害性為標準。而筆者認為其實兩者并無優(yōu)劣之分,也不是絕對的相互排斥,只是在不同層面的地位不同而已。其次是對“病癥”的理論研究,即“其他危險方法”的界定。對實踐現(xiàn)狀的論述則以司法實踐中的幾個典型案例為切入點,指出影響本罪成為“口袋罪”的因素除了立法、司法上的原因外,還包括對犯罪構成屬性認識的差異。第二部分是對本文理論基礎的分析,指出犯罪事實體系是社會發(fā)展到一定階段的產(chǎn)物,而判斷犯罪構成符合性的事實標準則是罪刑法定和主客觀相統(tǒng)一原則的必然要求。在這部分內(nèi)容中,筆者對罪刑法定的明確性以及主客觀統(tǒng)一于犯罪事實都做了比較詳細的論述。第三部分是對本罪犯罪客體所涉及的相關概念的分析,包括“公共安全”的釋義以及對“不特定或者多數(shù)人”的分析。指出刑法學意義上的“公共安全”就是對不特定或者多數(shù)人的保護,而“不特定”應該是指行為人對其行為所侵犯的對象以及可能帶來的后果無法事先確定,事態(tài)的發(fā)展完全脫離行為人的控制,危害后果隨時可能增加,而不是對行為之初所選擇的對象的不確定,并且不特定還應該具有從少數(shù)人朝多數(shù)人發(fā)展的趨勢和可能。第四部分主要論述在犯罪事實體系下對“其他危險方法”的理解與界定,其一是對“其他”的理解,筆者認為“其他”雖然被詬病為“萬惡之源”,但也有其存在的必要,我們不能一直處于要實現(xiàn)刑法的絕對明確的不切實際的妄想之中,而應該清醒地認識到,“其他”并不是毫無限制,在犯罪事實體系下,只要用事實的標準,按照同類解釋規(guī)則對其進行限定和解釋,就能實現(xiàn)其刑法的相對明確。其二這部分內(nèi)容指出了“其他危險方法”的本質(zhì)特征就是事實的危險,具體表現(xiàn)為行為本身的危險,而不是行為人和法益的危險,是手段的危險而不是對象的危險。其三論述了具體判斷“其他危險方法”的方法,即從危險相當性的角度理解,“其他危險方法”必須達到足以致人死亡或者重傷的程度；必須具有與放火、決水等相當?shù)臍�；必須具有一�?jīng)實施便脫離行為人控制的特性。第五部分是解決問題,即理論對于實踐的指導意義,用前文的論述來分析具體的案件。這部分主要選取了本罪在司法實踐中被擴張適用的三個比較典型的案件,一是對盜竊窨井蓋行為的評析,二是對隨意傷人事件的評析,三是對“碰瓷”行為的評析。這三種行為方式在司法實踐中都曾被認定為“其他危險方法”,從而以以危險方法危害公共安全罪判處。然而筆者認為不能一概而論,需要區(qū)分不同的情況,因此筆者試圖以本文的觀點來具體分析這三種行為方式。
[Abstract]:Since the twenty-first Century, the society is more complex and changeable, people's life can be said to have undergone tremendous changes. The relationship between risk and opportunity is more encrypt. The progress of science and technology brings great risks while bringing opportunities. For example, the "melamine" incident that happened a few years ago still let moms heart The taste of "poison blood" still lingers on the tip of the tongue, as well as the drunken driving case such as Sun Weiming, the case of the private pull power grid and other threats to public safety. It is because these crimes of public safety are repeatedly seen in the newspapers, frequently entering the vision of the common people, so that many people who do not know the law have known "the dangerous method". However, judicial practice has caused great controversy in dealing with these cases, because when the current law does not effectively regulate some of the new means of crime, the judicial organs often think of the 114th and 115th article of the criminal law when they are helpless, and expand their explanations in order to commit these new crimes. It is not only the criminal jurisprudence, but also the ordinary people are interested in the crime. I think it can not be denied that the practice of the judicial organs does have a certain effect, but it also has a violation of the criminal law. It explains the act of the law and puts forward his own views on how to solve the problem of the crime. It includes how to explain the object of the crime, public safety, and how to limit the scope of the "other dangerous methods". However, although the academic circle has made a lot of efforts on these two aspects, it still has not been disputed, especially the same. "Other dangerous methods" is defined. I think the reason for this is that the research of the predecessors only solved the "symptom", but did not cure the "disease source", and the reason why the reason why not to cure "the source" is closely related to the difference of the cognition of the Constitution attribute of the criminal law in our country, and ignores the big industrial society. Under the background, we should adhere to the principle of the legality of crime and punishment, to make a factual and formal understanding of the constitution of the crime, and not to make a substantive understanding. The original intention of this article is to firmly adhere to the soul of the criminal fact system, based on the conformance of crime, and always carry out the principle of unity of the principle of the legality and the subjective and objective principles of the crime. It is an innovation of this article, which is an innovation in this article, to limit the extension of the "other dangerous methods" in 114 and 115 of the criminal law. This article is divided into five parts except the introduction and conclusion, and the main contents are as follows: first Part is the thought caused by the current situation of theory and practice, and discusses the present situation of theoretical research, mainly from two aspects of "disease source" and "disease". "Disease source" is the choice of judgment standard of crime constitution, pointing out that there are two different views in the criminal jurisprudence, one is that the judgment of the constitution of crime should be the fact judgment. A judgement that the constitution of a crime should be a judgment of value. The former holds that the constitutive requirements are form, so that the establishment of a crime should be judged in strict accordance with the constitutive requirements; the latter takes the legislative process as a process of value judgment, and considers that the Constitution itself is of value, so that the crime is committed. The judgment of value should be judged by the social harmfulness, and the author thinks that there is no distinction between the two, but it is not absolute mutual exclusion, but the status is different in different levels. The second is the theoretical study of "disease", that is, the definition of "other dangerous methods". The second part is the analysis of the theoretical basis of this article, and points out that the criminal fact system is the product of the social development to a certain stage, and the judgment of the constitution of the crime. The factual standard of conformity is the inevitable requirement of the principle of unity between the legality of the crime and the subjective and objective view. In this part, the author makes a more detailed exposition of the clarity of the legality of the crime and the unity of the subjective and objective views on the fact of the crime. The third part is the analysis of the related concepts involved in the object of the crime, including the "public safety". The meaning of "public security" in the sense of criminal law is the protection of the unspecific or most people, and the "unspecific" means that the perpetrator's object to its behavior and the possible consequences can not be determined first, and the development of the situation is completely divorced from the actor. The fourth part mainly discusses the understanding and definition of "other dangerous methods" under the criminal fact system, and one is the theory of "other". The author thinks that the "other" is criticized as "the source of all evil", but it also has its necessity. We can not always be in the absolute and unrealistic delusion of the criminal law. But we should be aware that "other" is not unrestricted. Under the criminal fact system, we should use the standard of fact, according to the same standard. This part points out that the essence of the "other dangerous methods" is the danger of the fact, that is, the danger of the behavior itself, not the danger of the actor and the legal benefit, the danger of the means but not the danger of the object. The method of judging "other dangerous methods" is described in detail, that is to understand from the point of view of danger equivalence that "other dangerous methods" must be enough to cause death or serious injury; it must have the same lethal power as fire, water and so on; the fifth part is to be removed from the perpetrator. The problem, that is, the guiding significance of the theory to practice, and the analysis of the specific cases with the discussion of the previous article. This part mainly selects three typical cases which are expanded in the judicial practice, one is the evaluation of the behavior of the burglary cover, the two is the evaluation and analysis of the random parts of the personnel, and the three is the evaluation and analysis of the "touch porcelain" behavior. The three forms of behavior have been identified as "other dangerous methods" in judicial practice, and thus are sentenced to the crime of endangering public security by dangerous methods. However, the author thinks that it is impossible to generalize and distinguish different situations, so the author tries to analyze these three ways of behavior in this article.
【學位授予單位】：西南財經(jīng)大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：D924.3

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前1條

1 陳忠林;;現(xiàn)行犯罪構成理論共性比較[J];現(xiàn)代法學;2010年01期

相關博士學位論文 前1條

1 鄭明瑋;論刑法中危險犯的“危險”[D];華東政法大學;2014年

相關碩士學位論文 前2條

1 盧晨;以危險方法危害公共安全罪擴張化問題研究[D];華東政法大學;2013年

2 王s，

本文編號：1938080