【摘要】：綁架罪實(shí)行行為的單復(fù)之爭(zhēng)一直以來(lái)都是理論界關(guān)于綁架罪的爭(zhēng)論焦點(diǎn),而因此導(dǎo)致的司法實(shí)踐中評(píng)判標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的不一,勢(shì)必會(huì)導(dǎo)致在司法實(shí)踐中出現(xiàn)顯失公平的現(xiàn)象,也違反了罪刑法定的原則。2009年2月28日,第十一屆全國(guó)人民代表大會(huì)常務(wù)委員會(huì)第七次會(huì)議通過(guò)了《刑法修正案(七)》,2015年8月29日,第十二屆全國(guó)人民代表大會(huì)常務(wù)委員會(huì)第十六次會(huì)議通過(guò)的《刑法修正案(九)》都對(duì)綁架罪進(jìn)行了修改,兩次修正案的出臺(tái)勢(shì)必導(dǎo)致對(duì)于綁架罪保護(hù)法益、實(shí)行行為等方面的重新解讀,也為本文的研究提供了時(shí)代背景。本文的研究方法主要有三種。首先,通過(guò)文獻(xiàn)分析法,對(duì)理論界的爭(zhēng)議做一定的梳理。其次,采用樣本數(shù)據(jù)分析的方法對(duì)理論爭(zhēng)議進(jìn)一步印證。案例的收集均來(lái)自于北大法寶,樣本數(shù)量100件,在時(shí)間、地域分布、制作審級(jí)等方面做了充分考慮,旨在保證樣本數(shù)據(jù)的有效性、科學(xué)性與時(shí)效性。最后,在個(gè)別重要的理論爭(zhēng)議點(diǎn)上,采取個(gè)案分析的方法,結(jié)合個(gè)案就相關(guān)問(wèn)題做詳盡的分析。本文論點(diǎn)緊緊圍繞實(shí)行行為,依據(jù)提出問(wèn)題——分析問(wèn)題——解決問(wèn)題的思維理路,從綁架罪保護(hù)法益,綁架罪實(shí)行行為單復(fù)之爭(zhēng),綁架罪犯罪形態(tài),綁架罪目的行為與手段行為合理定位四個(gè)方面結(jié)合理論與司法案件進(jìn)行分析。綁架罪保護(hù)法益方面,依據(jù)體系解釋的方法,本文認(rèn)為綁架罪的保護(hù)法益是人身自由、生命、健康權(quán)利,或者采用單一說(shuō)的進(jìn)一步細(xì)化認(rèn)為被綁架人在本來(lái)的生活狀態(tài)下的行動(dòng)自由以及身體安全(擇一關(guān)系)。在法益確定的基礎(chǔ)上,通過(guò)理論分析與司法案例解析認(rèn)定綁架罪的實(shí)行行為是單一行為,進(jìn)一步從犯罪形態(tài)方面認(rèn)定綁架罪的既遂不以提出勒索財(cái)物或者其他不法要求的目的行為所決定,也不應(yīng)以目的行為未實(shí)現(xiàn)而主動(dòng)釋放人質(zhì)而中止。最后,通過(guò)對(duì)綁架罪與他罪的區(qū)別以及綁架罪量刑上“情節(jié)較輕”案件的分析,對(duì)于手段行為與目的行為的作用進(jìn)一步明晰,認(rèn)定手段行為仍然是區(qū)分綁架罪與其他罪名之間的重要依據(jù),同時(shí)主觀目的是區(qū)分綁架罪與其他相似罪名之間的重要方面,而目的行為是推斷主觀目的、防止主觀化的重要工具。目的行為作為量刑情節(jié)對(duì)于量刑具有重要的影響和地位,能夠使得目的行為得到合理評(píng)價(jià),使其所侵犯的法益得到保護(hù)。本文希望通過(guò)理論討論與司法實(shí)踐分析,能夠?qū)壖茏飳?shí)行行為理論的發(fā)展與目的行為的合理定位有所助益。
[Abstract]:The dispute over the practice of kidnapping crime has always been the focus of debate on kidnapping crime in the theoretical circle, but the difference of judgment standards in judicial practice will inevitably lead to the phenomenon of apparent injustice in judicial practice. On 28 February 2009, the Seventh meeting of the standing Committee of the Eleventh National people's Congress adopted the Criminal Law Amendment (VII), on 29 August 2015, The Amendment to the Criminal Law (9), adopted by the standing Committee of the Twelfth National people's Congress at its sixteenth session, both amended the crime of kidnapping. The introduction of the two amendments is bound to lead to the protection of the crime of kidnapping. The reinterpretation of the practice behavior also provides the background for the study of this paper. There are three main research methods in this paper. First of all, through the literature analysis, the controversy in the theoretical circle to do a certain sort. Secondly, the method of sample data analysis is used to further confirm the theoretical controversy. The collection of cases all come from Beijing University magic weapon, the sample number is 100, in time, the geographical distribution, the production and so on aspect has made the full consideration, in order to guarantee the sample data validity, the science and the timeliness. Finally, in some important theoretical disputes, the case analysis method is used to analyze the related problems in detail. The argument of this paper is closely centered around the practice behavior, according to the thinking of putting forward the question-analyzing the problem-solving the problem, from the profit of the kidnapping crime protection law, from the crime of kidnapping to the conflict of the single act, the form of the crime of kidnapping, and the form of the crime of kidnapping. The purpose and means of kidnapping crime are analyzed from four aspects: theory and judicial case. In terms of the interests of the law of kidnapping, according to the method of system interpretation, this paper holds that the law of kidnapping is the right to personal freedom, life and health. Or use a single argument to further refine the kidnapped person's freedom of movement and physical safety in their original state of life (optionally). On the basis of the determination of legal interests, through theoretical analysis and judicial case analysis, it is concluded that the practice of kidnapping is a single act. Further from the aspect of criminal form, the crime of kidnapping should not be decided by the purpose of extorting property or other illegal demands, nor should the release of the hostage be terminated on the basis of the failure of the intended act. Finally, through the analysis of the difference between the crime of kidnapping and the other crime and the case of "light circumstances" in the sentencing of kidnapping crime, the function of the act of means and the act of purpose is further clarified. The act of identifying means is still an important basis for distinguishing kidnapping crime from other charges, while the subjective purpose is to distinguish the important aspect between kidnapping crime and other similar charges, while the purpose act is to infer subjective purpose. An important tool to prevent subjectivization. As the circumstances of sentencing, the act of purpose has an important influence and status on sentencing, which can make the purpose behavior be evaluated reasonably and the legal interests violated by it be protected. This article hopes that through the theoretical discussion and the judicial practice analysis, can carry on the behavior theory development and the goal behavior reasonable localization to the kidnapping crime to be helpful.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D924.34

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王文祖,申屠青;從兩案看綁架罪與搶劫罪的區(qū)別[J];河南公安高等�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2004年05期

2 姚劍;;綁架罪? 還是以搶劫罪和綁架罪實(shí)行數(shù)罪并罰?[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(上旬刊);2008年12期

3 陳如春,甄麗君;彭某等人構(gòu)成綁架罪[J];天津市政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1999年01期

4 王宗光;論綁架罪的認(rèn)定[J];法律適用;2000年05期

5 肖俊德,樊洪;略論綁架罪的幾個(gè)問(wèn)題[J];中州學(xué)刊;2000年06期

6 田宏杰,許成磊;海峽兩岸綁架罪之比較研究[J];云南法學(xué);2000年02期

7 肖中華;;關(guān)于綁架罪的幾點(diǎn)思考[J];法學(xué)家;2000年02期

8 王超杰,李冬梅;論綁架罪的認(rèn)定[J];福建公安高等專科學(xué)校學(xué)報(bào).社會(huì)公共安全研究;2001年06期

9 杜國(guó)強(qiáng);綁架罪若干問(wèn)題研究[J];河北法學(xué);2001年06期

10 夏強(qiáng);綁架罪質(zhì)疑[J];浙江省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2001年02期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 朱明鎖;綁架罪的主體及其定罪量刑[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2000年

2 朱奎;綁架女兒勒索妻子 是否構(gòu)成綁架罪[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2005年

3 中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院法學(xué)所研究員 曾慶敏;綁架罪疑難問(wèn)題淺析[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2002年

4 豐誠(chéng)福邋何愛國(guó);綁架罪疑難問(wèn)題解析[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2007年

5 江西省高級(jí)人民法院 居國(guó)屏邋湯媛媛;本案應(yīng)以強(qiáng)奸罪和綁架罪數(shù)罪并罰[N];人民法院報(bào);2008年

6 記者 陳麗平;綁架罪最低刑不宜降低為三年[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2008年

7 趙秉志　趙遠(yuǎn);試論綁架罪的立法完善[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2009年

8 上海市青浦區(qū)人民檢察院 陳海燕;“不法要求”并非人質(zhì)型綁架罪的構(gòu)罪條件[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2009年

9 記者 王麗麗;綁架罪三年起刑偏輕[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2008年

10 重慶市江北區(qū)人民法院 付鳴劍　最高人民法院 �？饲�;本案構(gòu)成搶劫罪還是綁架罪[N];人民法院報(bào);2010年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 馮玉東;對(duì)綁架罪和搶劫罪界限的探析[D];西南政法大學(xué);2008年

2 葛依然;“人質(zhì)型”搶劫的性質(zhì)界定[D];蘇州大學(xué);2015年

3 蔣志梅;綁架罪若干問(wèn)題研究[D];云南大學(xué);2015年

4 黃嬌嬌;綁架罪司法認(rèn)定研究[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2014年

5 周超;綁架罪既遂標(biāo)準(zhǔn)研究[D];安徽財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2017年

6 趙晨翔;綁架罪加重構(gòu)成條款的再研究[D];武漢大學(xué);2017年

7 陳建武;論綁架罪的既遂標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[D];吉林大學(xué);2017年

8 程文超;綁架罪法益問(wèn)題研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2017年

9 虎文博;論綁架罪的實(shí)行行為[D];吉林大學(xué);2017年

10 任崢;綁架罪司法疑難問(wèn)題研究[D];貴州大學(xué);2008年

，

本文編號(hào)：2261879