本文選題：不可罰事后行為 + 不可罰的界限�。� 參考：《揚(yáng)州大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：不可罰事后行為理論是當(dāng)代刑法學(xué)界的一大課題,其誕生于德國而后發(fā)展于日本以及臺(tái)灣地區(qū),但在我國大陸刑法學(xué)界的研究和論著中對(duì)該理論卻鮮有提及。然而隨著罪數(shù)論的不斷深入及發(fā)展,不可罰事后行為理論在認(rèn)知和處理上便成了刑法學(xué)界在罪數(shù)論中爭(zhēng)議的焦點(diǎn),更加成為了司法實(shí)踐中的真空地帶。由此,對(duì)不可罰事后行為進(jìn)行更深一步的理論和司法實(shí)踐探索有著非常重要的作用以及意義。 不可罰事后行為在缺乏構(gòu)成要件的該當(dāng)性上,使其與吸收犯相區(qū)別。不可罰事后行為屬于本來的一罪,因而其與牽連犯不同。轉(zhuǎn)化犯具有的法定性、轉(zhuǎn)化性、唯一性和趨重性特征使得轉(zhuǎn)化犯和不可罰事后行為亦完全不同。就不可罰事后行為與結(jié)果加重犯而言,不可罰事后行為不存在現(xiàn)行刑法對(duì)其的明文規(guī)定以及不可能出現(xiàn)更加嚴(yán)重的后果這兩點(diǎn)上,二者也存在明顯區(qū)別。不可罰事后行為在構(gòu)成上存在主體、侵犯法益的同一性,犯罪的既遂狀態(tài)以及形式上的構(gòu)成要件符合性等四個(gè)特征。在不可罰的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)問題上,存在法條競(jìng)合說、包括的一罪說、構(gòu)成要件解決說和、禁止重復(fù)評(píng)價(jià)說以及期待可能性說等諸多觀點(diǎn)。但法條競(jìng)合說對(duì)于行為性質(zhì)不同的事后行為的該種犯罪無法解決,構(gòu)成要件解決說無法解釋法益被二次侵害的這種事后情況,建立在吸收犯基礎(chǔ)上的禁止重復(fù)評(píng)價(jià)說由于無法解決吸收的理由也使得觀點(diǎn)陷入困境,期待可能性理論是建立在規(guī)范責(zé)任論的基礎(chǔ)上的,其核心的觀點(diǎn)是罪責(zé),而罪責(zé)與不法構(gòu)成大陸法系犯罪論的整體。因此,在我國語境下以期待可能性理論來解決行為的不可罰本身就存在前提是否適應(yīng)的問題。針對(duì)不同類型的不可罰行為進(jìn)行分別解釋應(yīng)該是合理的選擇。不可罰事后行為應(yīng)定位于量刑情節(jié)的功能。在定罪時(shí)應(yīng)注意不可罰事后行為的構(gòu)成避免重復(fù)評(píng)價(jià)和趨重傾向。在其影響量刑的情況下,應(yīng)在判決書中闡明量刑理由。在司法實(shí)踐中,不可罰事后行為在解決追訴時(shí)效如何起算一以及其在認(rèn)定自首問題上具有特殊功能。
[Abstract]:The theory of irrevocable afterwards act is a major subject in the contemporary criminal law field. It was born in Germany and then developed in Japan and Taiwan. However, it is seldom mentioned in the studies and works of criminal law circles in mainland China. However, with the deepening and development of the theory of the number of crimes, the theory of unpunished afterwards behavior has become the focus of controversy in the field of criminal law in the field of criminal number theory, and has become the vacuum zone in the judicial practice. Therefore, it plays an important role and significance to explore the theory and judicial practice of the non-punishable post-action. In the absence of the constitutive elements, the non-punishable post-action distinguishes it from the absorbing offense. The act of non-punishment is an original crime, so it is different from the implicated crime. The legal, transformative, uniqueness and tendency characteristics of the transformed crime make it completely different from the unpunished afterwards behavior. There are obvious differences between the two aspects, which are not the explicit provisions of the current criminal law and the more serious consequences of the non-punishable ex post facto act and the aggravated consequential act of the result, and the difference between the two aspects is also obvious in the view of the fact that it is impossible to produce more serious consequences in the present criminal law. There are four characteristics in the constitution of the act after the punishment: the subject, the identity of the infringing legal interests, the accomplished state of the crime and the conformance of the constitutive elements in the form. On the issue of the standard of impunity, there are many points of view, such as the doctrine of concurrence of laws, including the theory of one crime, the theory of resolution of constitutive elements and the prohibition of repeated evaluation, and the theory of expectation possibility, and so on. However, the theory of competing articles of law can not solve this kind of crime with different nature of conduct after the event, and the solution of constitutive elements cannot explain this kind of situation after the legal interest has been infringed by the second time. On the basis of the prohibition of repeated evaluation on the basis of absorptive offense, the theory of expectation possibility is based on the theory of normative responsibility, and its core view is guilt, because the reasons for absorption cannot be solved, and the theory of expectation possibility is based on the theory of normative responsibility. And guilt and lawlessness constitute the whole of the theory of crime in continental law system. Therefore, in the context of our country, the theory of expectation possibility is used to solve the problem of whether the premise is suitable or not. It should be a reasonable choice to explain the different types of behavior separately. The non-punishable post-action should be defined as the function of the circumstances of sentencing. In the conviction, attention should be paid to the composition of the non-penalty-afterwards behavior to avoid repeated evaluation and tendency to accentuate. In the case of its influence on sentencing, the reasons for sentencing should be stated in the judgment. In judicial practice, the act of non-punishment afterwards has a special function in solving the problem of how to calculate the limitation of prosecution and in determining surrender.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：揚(yáng)州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D914

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 徐岱,梁緣;吸收犯之生存空間論——吸收犯之學(xué)理解釋[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2005年03期

2 張智輝;論刑法中的伴隨行為[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1999年04期

3 陳興良;;刑法競(jìng)合論[J];法商研究;2006年02期

4 郭開元;韓燕;;論禁止重復(fù)評(píng)價(jià)原則與刑法競(jìng)合[J];河北法學(xué);2006年10期

5 童偉華;吸收犯學(xué)說述評(píng)[J];華僑大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2001年02期

6 劉偉;事后不可罰行為——兼論吸收犯之重構(gòu)[J];金陵法律評(píng)論;2005年01期

7 吳振興;吸收犯存廢芻議[J];法學(xué)研究;1994年05期

8 方巖;;洗錢犯罪主體范圍評(píng)析——洗錢犯罪主體應(yīng)否包括上游犯罪本犯[J];黑龍江省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年04期

9 趙丙貴;王雁群;;想象競(jìng)合犯處罰的司法適用問題[J];遼寧大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2011年02期

10 應(yīng)悅;洗錢罪的上游犯罪問題研究[J];上海大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2003年06期

，

本文編號(hào)：1960113