本文選題：危險犯 + 危險狀態(tài)　； 參考：《煙臺大學》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：自動排除危險狀態(tài)行為,是指犯罪行為人實施了刑法規(guī)定的危害行為,符合刑法分則中規(guī)定的危險犯的犯罪構(gòu)成,但是在產(chǎn)生了足以造成嚴重的實害結(jié)果的法定危險狀態(tài)之后,實害結(jié)果尚未發(fā)生之前,行為人又出于自身主觀自由意志支配,積極采取的排除先前產(chǎn)生的法定危險狀態(tài)并使得實害結(jié)果沒有發(fā)生的有效措施。通說觀點是只要法定危險狀態(tài)已經(jīng)出現(xiàn),無論行為人是否有自動排除該危險狀態(tài)行為,都不能阻卻危險犯的既遂的認定。但是通說觀點飽受詬病,有論者認為,有自動排除危險狀態(tài)行為的認定為既遂有量刑過重之嫌。但是這這觀點在理論上都難以成立。堅持刑法基本理論的通說的地位不容質(zhì)疑,但是也存在一定的缺陷,堅持刑法的基本理論之下彌補這些缺陷才是解決這一問題的正確方向。具體來說,可以借鑒國內(nèi)外立法例,參考這些立法中自動排除危險狀態(tài)行為可以適用的減輕或免除處罰的規(guī)定,針對具體的刑法分則條文設置特殊的法定量刑情節(jié),使自動排除危險狀態(tài)的行為人獲得寬大處理,以解決量刑過重的問題。
[Abstract]:The act of automatically excluding dangerous state means that the perpetrator has carried out the harmful act stipulated in the criminal law, which conforms to the constitution of the crime of dangerous crime stipulated in the special provisions of the criminal law, but after producing a legal dangerous state sufficient to cause serious actual harm, Before the actual harm result happened, the actor, out of his own subjective free will, took effective measures to eliminate the legal dangerous state that had been produced before and to make the actual harm result do not happen. The general view is that as long as the legal state of danger has already appeared, no matter whether the actor has the behavior of automatically excluding the dangerous state, it can not prevent the identification of the accomplished of the dangerous offender. But the general view has been criticized, some critics believe that the automatic exclusion of dangerous behavior is considered to be excessive sentencing. But this view is difficult to hold in theory. The position of upholding the general theory of the basic theory of criminal law cannot be questioned, but there are also some defects. The correct direction to solve this problem is to make up for these defects under the basic theory of criminal law. Specifically, we can draw lessons from domestic and foreign legislative examples, refer to the provisions in these legislations that can be applied to mitigate or exempt punishment from acts of automatic exclusion of dangerous state, and set up special statutory circumstances for sentencing in accordance with the specific provisions of the special provisions of the criminal law. Leniency is granted to those who automatically exclude danger to solve the problem of excessive sentencing.
【學位授予單位】：煙臺大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D924.3

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 閆雨;;論危險犯的既遂后自動恢復[J];中國社會科學院研究生院學報;2015年05期

2 欒廣萍;;結(jié)果加重犯構(gòu)成基本問題簡析[J];咸寧學院學報;2010年07期

3 李濤;;論危險犯的“危險后中止”[J];石河子大學學報(哲學社會科學版);2010年03期

4 舒洪水;;論危險犯的中止[J];云南大學學報(法學版);2010年03期

5 劉憲權(quán);;故意犯罪停止形態(tài)相關理論辨正[J];中國法學;2010年01期

6 徐光華;;論我國刑法分則的立法模式——犯罪既遂與犯罪成立模式之爭[J];刑法論叢;2009年02期

7 徐光華;;排除危險狀態(tài)行為之認定[J];河北法學;2009年03期

8 姜敏;;危險犯既遂后的中止問題研究[J];政法學刊;2008年01期

9 王志祥;;結(jié)果加重犯的未遂問題新論[J];法商研究;2007年03期

10 胡東飛;;危險犯的形態(tài)及其法條適用[J];西南政法大學學報;2005年06期

，

本文編號：2047213