【摘要】：教唆未遂的處罰問題研究并不是將教唆犯與未遂犯理論簡(jiǎn)單的結(jié)合，進(jìn)而討論教唆犯未遂形態(tài)的處罰問題。教唆未遂情形下教唆行為的處罰依據(jù)更需要從教唆者的行為本身出發(fā)來考察，其行為本質(zhì)是單獨(dú)犯罪預(yù)備形態(tài)的表現(xiàn)形式。因此，無論從教唆犯的性質(zhì)討論還是共犯成立體系的角度出發(fā)對(duì)此的論證都不合理�？紤]到教唆未遂的行為對(duì)刑法所保護(hù)法益可能造成的高度危險(xiǎn)，其處罰根據(jù)的討論需要結(jié)合現(xiàn)代刑事政策理論發(fā)展，理順犯罪論體系與刑事政策的新型關(guān)系，才能更好地說明對(duì)教唆未遂處罰的合理性。借鑒大陸法系代表性德國(guó)的刑事立法與理論研究，可以進(jìn)一步明確我國(guó)刑法第29條第2款規(guī)定的教唆未遂的處罰范圍，并深入論證在我國(guó)當(dāng)下立法體系之下將教唆未遂的處罰視為處罰單獨(dú)犯罪預(yù)備犯的合理性。整合上述的研究觀點(diǎn)和論證思路，全文主要分為以下三大部分： 文章的第一部分首先針對(duì)“教唆未遂”的概念進(jìn)行合理的界定并明晰教唆未遂的不同情形，在此基礎(chǔ)上綜合分析闡述我國(guó)刑法有關(guān)教唆未遂規(guī)定之第29條第2款，明確本文主要探討解決的問題。本部分主要分三個(gè)方面指明：刑法第29條第2款并非針對(duì)典型共同犯罪的規(guī)定；教唆未遂中“教唆行為”應(yīng)當(dāng)定位于實(shí)行行為的性質(zhì)；第29條第2款規(guī)定可能引發(fā)處罰不平衡的問題是立法層面的問題，并不是否定教唆未遂處罰的理由。 文章的第二部分主要介紹現(xiàn)存不同學(xué)說就刑法第29條第2款的內(nèi)容規(guī)定以及教唆未遂處罰的不同見解，并作綜合評(píng)析，從教唆犯獨(dú)立性說、二重性說、從屬性說以及單一正犯體系角度展開。通過對(duì)以上觀點(diǎn)的評(píng)述，明確本文的立論基礎(chǔ)，教唆未遂規(guī)定不應(yīng)該隸屬共犯范疇問題，宜以單獨(dú)犯罪預(yù)備認(rèn)定，從教唆犯性質(zhì)討論教唆未遂可罰性并不適當(dāng)，，而教唆未遂的處罰與堅(jiān)持教唆犯從屬性并不相違背，并認(rèn)為刑法第29條第2款中“教唆犯”的真正含義是教唆者。在此基礎(chǔ)之上，堅(jiān)持了教唆未遂處罰的立場(chǎng)，并從認(rèn)為教唆未遂的處罰反映了現(xiàn)代社會(huì)中刑罰觸角前伸，應(yīng)對(duì)社會(huì)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的刑事政策之使然，也是現(xiàn)代刑法體系與刑事政策的新型關(guān)系的重要體現(xiàn)。 文章的第三部分主要進(jìn)一步論證將教唆未遂以單獨(dú)犯罪預(yù)備認(rèn)定的合理性，并介紹、分析大陸法系有代表性的德國(guó)處罰教唆未遂的立法與理論現(xiàn)狀，并結(jié)合與我國(guó)立法規(guī)定的比較分析，進(jìn)一步說明將教唆未遂的處罰是我國(guó)處罰預(yù)備犯的體現(xiàn)之一。最后探討教唆未遂處罰的情形認(rèn)定，并結(jié)合德國(guó)現(xiàn)有理論的教唆未遂成立標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，重點(diǎn)介紹成立教唆未遂的客觀要件與主觀要件的問題。
[Abstract]:The study on the penalty of attempted abettor is not a simple combination of the theory of abettor and attempted crime, and then discusses the punishment of the form of attempted abettor. In the case of attempted abetment, the punishment basis of abettor's behavior should be examined from the instigator's behavior itself, and its nature is the manifestation of the individual form of crime preparation. Therefore, it is unreasonable to discuss the nature of abettor or the establishment system of accomplice. Taking into account the high risk that attempted instigations may pose to the interests of criminal law protection laws, and the need to rationalize the new relationship between the criminal theory system and criminal policy in the light of the development of modern criminal policy theories and the discussion of the basis for their punishment, In order to better explain the instigator attempted punishment is reasonable. With reference to the criminal legislation and theoretical research in Germany, the representative of the continental law system, we can further clarify the penalty scope of attempted instigation as stipulated in Article 29, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Law of our country. And further demonstrates that under the current legislative system of our country, the penalty of attempted abetment is regarded as the rationality of punishing individual crime preparatory offenders. The thesis is divided into three parts as follows: the first part of the article defines the concept of "attempted abettor" reasonably and clarifies the different situations of attempted abettor. On the basis of this, the article 29 (2) of the criminal law about attempted abetment is analyzed comprehensively, and the main problems discussed in this paper are clarified. This part mainly points out in three aspects: the article 29 (2) of the Criminal Law is not aimed at the typical joint crime, the "abetting act" in the attempt of abetting should be defined as the nature of the act; Article 29, paragraph 2, states that the question that may lead to an imbalance in punishment is a matter of legislation and not a reason to deny the penalty of attempted abetment. The second part of the article mainly introduces the content of article 29, paragraph 2 of the criminal law and different opinions on the punishment of attempted abettor, and makes a comprehensive analysis, from the theory of the independence of the abettor, the theory of duality. From the perspective of attribute theory and single principal offender system. Based on the comments above, it is clear that the instigator attempt should not belong to the category of accomplice, and it is not appropriate to discuss the instigating attempted punishment from the nature of the abettor. However, the penalty of attempted abettor is not contrary to the accessory nature of abettor, and it is believed that the true meaning of "abettor" in Article 29 (2) of Criminal Law is abettor. On this basis, we adhere to the position of attempted instigating punishment, and from the view that the penalty of attempted abettor reflects the criminal policy of social risk in modern society, It is also an important embodiment of the new relationship between modern criminal law system and criminal policy. In the third part, the author further demonstrates the rationality of trying to commit a crime alone, and introduces the legislative and theoretical situation of the representative German penalty attempt in continental law system. Combined with the comparative analysis of the legislative provisions of our country, it is further explained that the punishment of attempted abettor is one of the embodiment of the punishment of the preparatory offender in our country. Finally, this paper discusses the case determination of attempted abettor punishment, and introduces the objective and subjective elements of attempted instigation in combination with the existing German theory of the criteria for the establishment of attempted instigation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D924.1

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 馬聰;中國(guó)古代共同犯罪的發(fā)展歷史[J];鄭州航空工業(yè)管理學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2004年06期

2 ;[J];;年期

3 ;[J];;年期

4 ;[J];;年期

5 ;[J];;年期

6 ;[J];;年期

7 ;[J];;年期

8 ;[J];;年期

9 ;[J];;年期

10 ;[J];;年期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 石曉慧;連累犯問題研究[D];鄭州大學(xué);2007年

2 解琦;論教唆未遂的處罰[D];華東政法大學(xué);2014年

本文編號(hào)：2279701