【摘要】：在當(dāng)今社會中,人類據(jù)以決定彼此之間行為模式的主要規(guī)范即為法律規(guī)范,相對于社會中存在的其他規(guī)范而言,其顯然屬于一種正式規(guī)范,并且成為了一種最重要、最有效的社會控制形式。然而,從人類生活中的點點滴滴來看,除了作為整體而存在的人類社會之外,在某些場合下,還可能存在一種“小型群體”,其內(nèi)部成員間的交互行為往往并不受制于正式規(guī)范的強制性作用,形成這種局面的原因在于:該類群體內(nèi)部的成員之間在交往過程中已經(jīng)就某種事務(wù)的處理建立了一種彼此信任的人際關(guān)系,這使得任何正式的法律保護(hù)或制裁成為多余。因而在不影響全社會及群體外部其他成員的前提下,應(yīng)該該“小型群體”中的成員在交互活動中就某種事務(wù)的處理而構(gòu)建的“非正式規(guī)范”對正式規(guī)范作出某些調(diào)整與修正,以保證特定情形下人們行為規(guī)范的個別化與合理性。在刑法研究的領(lǐng)域,依推定的權(quán)利人同意之行為即屬于這類情形,因為其要解決的問題恰好就是對于基于特定的關(guān)系而形成的“小型群體”中的人們在無法獲得權(quán)利人現(xiàn)實意志的條件下,通過考察相互之間的特定關(guān)系和客觀存在的情勢,以期最大限度地接近權(quán)利人現(xiàn)實意志來處置對方利益的行為之定性問題。在這一過程中,上述“非正式規(guī)范”的重要意義即在于其是為行為人與權(quán)利人雙方所共同認(rèn)可的、從而在行為人處置權(quán)利人利益時所要遵循的規(guī)范。當(dāng)“小型群體”中的行為人遵循了這些“非正式規(guī)范”(以不動搖正式規(guī)范對于社會中其他成員及社會整體之效力為前提),即便其行為看上去不那么嚴(yán)格地符合正式規(guī)范的要求,刑法也應(yīng)當(dāng)本著一種“網(wǎng)開一面”的精神,放棄對其作出評價。但是行為人在依推定的權(quán)利人同意的行為時,不能逾越正式規(guī)范所劃定的界限,同時,應(yīng)當(dāng)考慮“社會一般觀念”的要求。全文除引言部分外,分為五章,共計17萬余字。第一章討論了依推定的權(quán)利人同意之行為的概念以及具體分類。依推定的權(quán)利人同意之行為應(yīng)當(dāng)表述為:與權(quán)利人在所涉事項的范圍內(nèi)具有一定關(guān)系的行為人,因無法明確知悉權(quán)利人的現(xiàn)實意志,而通過考察自身與權(quán)利人的特定關(guān)系,尤其是相互間的交往過程和客觀存在的情勢,以權(quán)利人的行為傾向為導(dǎo)向處置原本應(yīng)由權(quán)利人自身處置事項的行為,該行為在刑法上的意義主要取決于上述考察過程和行為本身,權(quán)利人事后的明確表態(tài)僅具參考價值。并且分析了“被害人”與“權(quán)利人”、“承諾”與“同意”等概念之間的區(qū)別與聯(lián)系,同時強調(diào)了所謂的“推定”只能發(fā)生在處于某一“小型群體”內(nèi)具有特定關(guān)系的行為人與權(quán)利人之間。具體而言,這類行為可以做如下分類:按照受益對象之不同,可分為:“為權(quán)利人利益的推定”和“為其他人利益的推定”,在“為權(quán)利人利益的推定”中,根據(jù)所推定事項可以進(jìn)一步地區(qū)分為“與物品有關(guān)的推定”、“與人格有關(guān)的推定”和“對現(xiàn)時決定的推定”。第二章介紹了依推定的權(quán)利人同意之行為在外國刑法理論中的發(fā)展?fàn)顩r。在英美法系國家的刑法理論中,其是作為一種“辯護(hù)事由”存在的,而在大陸法系國家的刑法理論中,通常在“違法阻卻事由”中討論這一問題,依推定的權(quán)利人同意之行為的正當(dāng)化根據(jù),主要包括“事務(wù)管理說”、“緊急避險說”、“權(quán)利人同意延伸說”(“法益衡量說”)、“社會相當(dāng)性說”、“被允許的風(fēng)險說”以及“獨立的違法性阻卻事由說”(“結(jié)合說”)等學(xué)說,其中,對于“事務(wù)管理說”有賴于刑法中的直接規(guī)定,“緊急避險說”和“權(quán)利人同意延伸說”的提法可謂是基于該類行為之形象的對立,而“結(jié)合說”則認(rèn)為兩種形象兼而有之,應(yīng)該認(rèn)為:該事由之理論形象包括了緊急避險行為和存在“權(quán)利人同意”的行為,其中后者居于主導(dǎo)地位。真正能被視為在成立原理上對立的是“法益衡量說”(可以視為“權(quán)利人同意延伸說”)、“社會相當(dāng)性說”和“被允許的危險說”,因為這些學(xué)說都是基于對“違法性”理解的不同而形成的學(xué)說對立。其中,“法益衡量說”是“權(quán)利人同意延伸說”(大致上的)另一種稱謂,由于其對行為的性質(zhì)采取“事后判斷”的做法,不符合刑法作為社會科學(xué)的特點,而“社會相當(dāng)性”這一理論則顯得過于寬泛,“被允許的風(fēng)險”主要針對的是過失犯罪的情形,而且其行為基準(zhǔn)的構(gòu)建基礎(chǔ)是某一帶有危險之行為所帶來的利益與該行為本身可能造成的危害之協(xié)調(diào)。第三章闡明了本文認(rèn)為依推定的權(quán)利人同意之行為屬于“構(gòu)成要件阻卻事由”的原因。因為,構(gòu)成要件符合性的判斷與違法性的判斷之間并非是形式判斷與實質(zhì)判斷的關(guān)系,而是知性思維與辨證理性的關(guān)系,換言之,構(gòu)成要件符合性的判斷也要考慮行為對法益在實質(zhì)意義上的侵害,而違法性的判斷則是解決法益相沖突的問題,在依推定的權(quán)利人同意之行為中,由于體現(xiàn)了對權(quán)利人之一貫態(tài)度的尊重,因而不應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)為存在“法益沖突”,從而應(yīng)當(dāng)否定其實質(zhì)的法益侵害,因此,其并非屬于“違法阻卻事由”。同時,刑法的目的在于保護(hù)法益,因而“法益”概念也就成為了構(gòu)成要件的核心,否定了行為對法益的實質(zhì)侵害,即否認(rèn)了其構(gòu)成要件符合性。學(xué)說史上對“法益”之概念存在諸多聚訟,但所謂的“法益”應(yīng)當(dāng)被理解為法治社會中的個人“自我實現(xiàn)與自由發(fā)展”的需要,為了保護(hù)法益,才能要求社會成員遵守一定的規(guī)范。并且,法益還應(yīng)當(dāng)是一個“前實定刑法”的概念,只有在其它手段都不足以對之進(jìn)行保護(hù)的前提下,刑法才能登場。而在依推定的權(quán)利人同意之行為得以成立的場合下,對權(quán)利人法益的保護(hù)更多地依賴于其自身通過在構(gòu)建“小型群體”中的成員均須遵守的“非正式規(guī)范”的過程中合理地表達(dá)自己的意愿,而不是訴諸于刑法的介入。第四章分析了依推定的權(quán)利人同意之行為在我國刑法理論中的發(fā)展?fàn)顩r。我國刑法學(xué)界針對犯罪構(gòu)成以及“犯罪阻卻事由”在其中的地位存在諸多爭議,從犯罪構(gòu)成各要件的研究內(nèi)容來看,可以將所有的犯罪阻卻事由都置于專事實質(zhì)判斷的“犯罪客體”中加以研究,在判斷方法上,應(yīng)當(dāng)強調(diào)“社會危害性”這一概念對否定行為符合犯罪構(gòu)成的作用。為了在一定程度上使得各類“犯罪阻卻事由”在排除“社會危害性”的理由上顯得更加明晰,可以將“犯罪阻卻事由”分為因?qū)ι鐣幸妗⒁蚩陀^危害性顯著輕微、因缺乏人身危險性以及因所涉當(dāng)事人之間的關(guān)系不屬于“社會關(guān)系”等,而依推定的權(quán)利人同意之行為應(yīng)當(dāng)屬于最后一類。同時,這一“犯罪阻卻事由”作為一種“超法規(guī)的犯罪阻卻事由”并不違反罪刑法定主義。這些事由之所以能夠“超法規(guī)”地存在是因為現(xiàn)實中并不存在一個“萬能的立法者”,從而能夠制定出將任何一種排除犯罪成立的場合都包含在內(nèi)的“犯罪阻卻事由”。第五章以“非正式規(guī)范”為核心歸納了依推定的權(quán)利人同意之行為的成立要件。對于某個擅自處置應(yīng)由他人處置事項的行為而言,如其欲成立依推定的權(quán)利人同意之行為,一方面不能逾越“非正式規(guī)范”的效力范圍,從而成為正式規(guī)范的調(diào)整對象,就要求行為所涉及的事項必須能夠由權(quán)利人自由處置,同時權(quán)利人必須有同意他人代為處置這些事項的能力,以及被“推定”的權(quán)利人意志具有自愿性。另一方面,“非正式規(guī)范”還必須根據(jù)行為人與權(quán)利人之間的特定關(guān)系、行為所涉及事項本身的性質(zhì)、權(quán)利人的慣常行為及其現(xiàn)實意志是否存在進(jìn)行建構(gòu),并以“社會一般觀念”作為判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn),在刑事司法活動中實現(xiàn)這一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的“間接在場”與“直接在場”。
[Abstract]:In today's society, the main norm for human beings to determine the mode of behavior between each other is the legal norm. Compared with other norms existing in the society, it is clearly a formal norm and is the most important and effective form of social control. Outside of human society, there may be a "small group" on some occasions. The interaction between its internal members is often not subject to the mandatory role of formal norms. The reason for this situation is that the members of the group within the group have already established a transaction in the process of communication. A kind of mutual trust, which makes any formal legal protection or sanctions superfluous, so that, without affecting the whole society and other members of the group, the "informal specification" of the members of the "small group" on the handling of a certain transaction in the interaction is made to the formal specification. Some adjustments and amendments are made to ensure the individualization and reasonableness of the norms of people's behavior under specific circumstances. In the field of criminal law research, the presumed act of consent of the right holder belongs to this kind of situation, because the problem it is to solve is that the people in the "small group" based on a specific relationship are unable to obtain the right to obtain the right. Under the conditions of the real will of the benefit of the interests of the people, by examining the specific relations between each other and the situation of the objective existence, it is expected that the qualitative question of the behavior of dealing with the interests of the other person is maximally close to the real will of the right person. In this process, the important meaning of the "informal norm" is that it is for both the actor and the right holder. The norm in which the perpetrator disposes the interests of the holder. When the perpetrator of the "small group" follows these "informal norms" (in order to unwaver the formal norms of the other members of the society and the effectiveness of the society as a whole), even if their behavior looks less strictly in accordance with the formal norms At the request of the criminal law, the criminal law should also give up an evaluation of it on the basis of a "open side" spirit. However, the perpetrator should not overstep the boundary delimited by the formal norms in accordance with the presumed act of the right person. At the same time, the requirements of the "general concept of society" should be considered. The full text, in addition to the introduction, is divided into five chapters, with a total of more than 17 words. The first chapter discusses the concept and specific classification of the presumption of the consent of the right holder. The presumption of the consent of the right holder should be expressed as a actor with a certain relationship with the right holder in the scope of the matter involved, because it is unable to know the real will of the right person and by examining the specific relationship with the right holder. In particular, the intercourse process and the objective situation in which the right person's behavior tends to be disposed of by the right person should be disposed of by the right person's own disposal. The significance of the act in the criminal law mainly depends on the above investigation process and the behavior itself. The clear statement after the rights and personnel is only of reference value. The difference and connection between the concept of "victim" and "right person", "commitment" and "consent" and so on, and emphasizing that the so-called "presumption" can only occur between the perpetrator and the right holder in a certain "small group". Specifically, this kind of behavior can be classified as follows: according to the difference of the beneficiary, It can be divided into: "the presumption for the interests of the right person" and "the presumption for the interests of other people". In the "presumption for the interests of the right person", it can be further divided into "presumption related to goods", "presumption relating to personality" and "presumption of the present decision". The second chapter introduces the right to be presumed. The development of the behavior of human consent in the theory of foreign criminal law. In the criminal law theory of Anglo American law countries, it exists as a "defense cause". In the criminal law theory of the civil law countries, the issue is usually discussed in the "illegal hindrance cause" and the justification of the presumed right of the person's consent. It mainly includes "transaction management theory", "emergency avoidance", "the right holder agrees to extend" ("the legal benefit theory"), "social equivalence", "the risk of being allowed" and "the independent illegality of the story" ("the combination of the theory"), which depends on the direct regulation of the "transaction management theory". The formulation of "emergency avoidance" and "the right holder's consent to extension" may be described as based on the opposition of the image of this kind of behavior, while the "union theory" holds that the two images are both of them. It should be considered that the theoretical image of the incident includes the act of emergency avoidance and the existence of "the consent of the right holder", of which the latter occupies the dominant position. What can really be seen as opposed to the principle of establishment is the "legal benefit measure" (which can be regarded as "the extension of the right holder"), the "social equivalence" and "the permissible danger", because these theories are based on the doctrines of the different understanding of the "illegality". The theory of "social equivalence" is too broad, and "the risk of being allowed" is mainly aimed at the situation of negligent crime and the benchmark of its behavior, because it does not conform to the characteristics of the criminal law as a social science. The foundation of construction is the coordination between the interests brought about by a dangerous act and the possible harm that the act itself may cause. The third chapter clarifies the reason that the act of the presumption of the consent of the right holder belongs to the cause of "the hindrance of the constituent elements", because the judgment of the conformance of the constitutive elements is not between the judgment of the law and the judgment of the illegality. The relationship between formal judgment and substantive judgment is the relationship between intellectual thinking and dialectical rationality. In other words, the judgment of the conformance of constitutive elements should also consider the violation of the legal interest in the substantive meaning, while the judgment of illegality is the problem of solving the conflict of legal interests. In the act of the presumption of the consent of the right person, the right is reflected in the right to the right. Therefore, we should not think of the existence of "conflict of legal interests", so that it should be denied the essence of the infringement of legal interest. Therefore, it does not belong to the "illegal hindrance". At the same time, the purpose of the criminal law is to protect the legal interest. Therefore, the concept of "legal interest" is also the core of the constitutive requirements, denying the fact that the act is true to the legal interest. In the history of theory, there are many disputes on the concept of "legal benefit", but the so-called "legal benefit" should be understood as the needs of the individual "self realization and free development" in the rule of law society. In order to protect the legal benefit, the members of the society should be required to comply with certain norms. It is a concept of "prefixed criminal law". Only under the premise that other means are not sufficient to protect it, the criminal law can be put on the field. And under the circumstances that the presumed right person's consent is established, the protection of the legal interest of the right person is more dependent on its own pass in the construction of a "small group". In the process of "informal norms", the fourth chapter analyzes the development of the behavior of the presumed right person in the criminal theory of our country. There are many disputes in the criminal jurisprudence of our country in regard to the constitution of the crime and the status of "the hindrance of the crime". On the basis of the research content of all the elements of the crime, all the criminal hindrance can be studied in the "object of crime" in the substantive judgment of the crime. In the judgment method, the concept of "social harmfulness" should be emphasized on the role of the negative act conforming to the constitution of the crime. To some extent, all kinds of "offenders" should be made. The reason for the hindrance of the crime is more clear in the exclusion of the "social harmfulness". It can be divided into the cause of the "criminal hindrance" as a result of the benefit of the society, the significant slight of the objective harmfulness, the lack of personal danger and the relationship between the parties involved, and the presumed right of the right person. It should be the last category. At the same time, the "criminal hindrance" as a "super statute crime hindrance" does not violate the Legalism of the crime. The reason why the reason can be "super statute" is that there is no "universal lawmaker" in reality, and it can be made out of any kind of exclusion. The fifth chapter, with "informal norms" as the core, summarizes the elements of the establishment of the presumption of the consent of the right holder. For an act which should be disposed of by others without authorization, it is impossible to establish the consent of the obligee. Overstepping the scope of the "informal norms" and thus becoming the object of the formal regulation, requires that the matters involved in the act must be disposed of freely by the right holder, and the right holder must have the ability to agree with others to dispose of these matters, as well as the voluntariness of the "presumed" right person. On the other hand, "no" The formal norms must also be based on the specific relationship between the perpetrator and the right holder, the nature of the matters involved in the act, the habitual behavior of the right person and the existence of its real will, and the "general concept of society" as the criterion for judgment and the "indirect presence" and "direct" in the criminal judicial activities. The presence of the presence.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D914

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 馬榮春;王超強;;犯罪構(gòu)成論體系與犯罪概念的關(guān)系[J];上海政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(法治論叢);2014年02期

2 蔡桂生;;論被害人同意在犯罪論體系中的定位[J];南京師大學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2013年06期

3 蔡桂生;;構(gòu)成要件論:罪刑法定與機(jī)能權(quán)衡[J];中外法學(xué);2013年01期

4 蔡桂生;;德國刑法學(xué)中構(gòu)成要件論的演變[J];刑事法評論;2012年02期

5 劉艷紅;;目的二階層體系與“但書”出罪功能的自洽性[J];法學(xué)評論;2012年06期

6 張明楷;;論被允許的危險的法理[J];中國社會科學(xué);2012年11期

7 金日秀;鄭軍男;;關(guān)于犯罪論體系的方法論考察[J];刑法論叢;2012年02期

8 楊萌;;德國刑法學(xué)中法益理論的歷史發(fā)展及現(xiàn)狀述評[J];學(xué)術(shù)界;2012年06期

9 楊萌;;德國刑法學(xué)中法益概念的內(nèi)涵及其評價[J];暨南學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2012年06期

10 曾文科;;個人法益結(jié)構(gòu)及應(yīng)用[J];福建法學(xué);2012年01期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 初紅漫;被害人過錯與罪刑關(guān)系研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2012年

2 張少林;被害人行為刑法意義之研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2010年

3 凌萍萍;被害人承諾研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2010年

4 陳慶安;超法規(guī)排除犯罪性事由研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2008年

，

本文編號：2141222