论我国犯罪参与体系之归属

发布时间：2018-05-10 13:47

本文选题：犯罪参与 + 单一制　；参考：《湘潭大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：我国《刑法》第25条对共同犯罪采取了极为简要的规定方式,而正是这简单明了的法条规定,给刑事司法实践与刑法理论研究带来极大的挑战:何为“共同”、何为“共同故意”、何为“共同故意犯罪”,都是需要进一步解释的问题。面对这些问题,不同学者基于不同的立场与视角可能得出不同的结论,而这也直接导致了“犯罪共同说”与“行为共同说”理论的分野。当然,这只是共同犯罪疑难问题研究的冰山一角。而要解决这些问题,犯罪参与体系归属的确定可能是更为重要的前置性问题。犯罪参与理论研究的是,在多数人共同实施犯罪行为的情形中,究竟什么人是应该对法益侵害结果负责的“真正行为人”(即所谓的“正犯”)。当今各国不同的刑事立法中,存在“区分制”和“单一制”的对立:前者认为应该对各犯罪参与人作出正犯与参与的划分,并据此产生刑罚给予上的差异,即在定罪阶段同时解决量刑问题;而单一制则更加重视行为与刑法所保护利益的关联性,确定了真正行为人后,其该在多大程度上承担法益侵害的刑事责任则应是量刑阶段需要解决的问题。毫无疑问,犯罪参与体系归属的确定是共同犯罪问题研究的开端与前提。以司法论为研究视角,依据我国《刑法》第25条——第29条的规定,从“立法原意”、立法特点、法条关系、立法动态和共同犯罪人的分类等角度来看,我国现行《刑法》在犯罪参与问题上采用了与单一制国家较为相似的立法模式。而且以单一制为视角,也可以合理解决共同犯罪研究中最为复杂的利用他人犯罪问题,这也从另一个方面论证了上述结论的科学性与合理性。
[Abstract]:Article 25 of the Criminal Law of our country has adopted the extremely brief stipulation way to the joint crime, and it is this simple and clear stipulation of the law, bring the great challenge to the criminal judicial practice and the study of the theory of criminal law: what is "common"? What is "joint intent" and "joint intentional crime" are questions that need further explanation. In the face of these problems, different scholars may draw different conclusions on the basis of different positions and perspectives, which directly leads to the separation of the theory of "common crime" and "common theory of behavior". Of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg in the study of the problem of joint crime. In order to solve these problems, the determination of the ownership of the criminal participation system may be more important. What the theory of criminal participation studies is that in the situation where most people commit a crime jointly, who is the "real perpetrator" (that is, the so-called "principal offender") who should be responsible for the result of legal interest infringement? In the present criminal legislation of different countries, there exists the opposites of "distinction system" and "single system": the former thinks that each criminal participant should be divided into the principal offender and the participant, and according to this, the difference of punishment is produced. That is, to solve the problem of sentencing at the same time in the conviction stage, while the single system pays more attention to the relationship between the behavior and the interests protected by the criminal law, and determines the real perpetrator. To what extent it should bear the criminal responsibility of legal interest infringement should be the problem to be solved in sentencing stage. There is no doubt that the determination of the ownership of crime participation system is the beginning and premise of joint crime research. From the angle of view of judicial theory, according to the provisions of Article 25-Article 29 of the Criminal Law of China, from the perspectives of "legislative intent", legislative characteristics, relationship between articles of law, legislative dynamics and classification of joint offenders, etc. China's current Criminal Law adopts a legislative model similar to that of a single country on the issue of criminal participation. Moreover, from the perspective of single system, the most complex problem of using others in the study of joint crime can be solved reasonably, which proves the scientific and reasonable conclusion from another aspect.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D924.3

【参考文献】