發(fā)布時間：2018-06-16 15:23

  本文選題：結果加重犯 + 共同犯罪��； 參考：《浙江大學》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：《中華人民共和國刑法》第二十五條對共同犯罪進行了規(guī)定,但卻沒有明確"結果加重犯"的概念,對于結果加重犯中的共同犯罪問題的規(guī)定更是付之闕如,由此造成理論上的諸多爭議,以及實務中的困惑。本文正是試圖厘清結果加重犯的概念、特征與結構,并結合共同犯罪的本質,探討結果加重犯能否成立共同犯罪,以及相關行為人對加重結果應否承擔刑事責任。本文正文共分為六章,共約三萬字。第一章:結果加重犯中共同犯罪問題概述。對結果加重犯的概念、特征以及結構進行闡述,并對共同犯罪的本質進行探討,提出結果加重犯中共同犯罪的根本問題是加重結果能否歸責于各行為人的問題。第二章:國內外對結果加重犯中共同犯罪問題的認識與處理。介紹英美法系與大陸法系對類似問題的認識與處理,其主流觀點是要求共犯對加重結果主觀上有預見可能性或存在過失。介紹我國理論與實務界的兩種學說,即"過失同時犯解消說"及"實行過限說"。第三章:"過失同時犯解消說"不可采。過失同時犯解消說"雖然具有一定的優(yōu)勢,但同樣存在不可忽視的缺陷。第四章:"實行過限說"不可取。實務采取的"實行過限說"在根本上適用原理有誤。第五章:對結果加重犯中共同犯罪問題的認定。個人認為"過失"系罪責要素,對于成立共同犯罪不生影響,但對于加重結果承擔責任客觀上要求系共同行為創(chuàng)設的典型風險的現實化,主觀上要求行為人對于加重結果能夠預見,并識別出共同行為創(chuàng)設的風險。
[Abstract]:Article 25 of the Criminal Law of the people's Republic of China provides for joint crime, but it does not clearly define the concept of "aggravated consequential crime". As a result, there are many theoretical controversies, as well as confusion in practice. This paper tries to clarify the concept, characteristics and structure of aggravated consequential crime, and combines the essence of joint crime, discusses whether the aggravated result crime can be established as a joint crime, and whether the relevant perpetrator should bear criminal responsibility for the aggravated result. This text is divided into six chapters, a total of about 30,000 words. Chapter one: summary of joint crime in aggravated crime. This paper expounds the concept, characteristics and structure of consequential aggravated crime, and probes into the essence of joint crime, and puts forward that the fundamental problem of joint crime in resultant aggravated crime is whether the aggravating result can be attributed to each actor. The second chapter: domestic and foreign understanding and treatment of joint crime in aggravated consequential crime. This paper introduces the cognition and treatment of similar problems in Anglo-American law system and civil law system. The main point of view is to require accomplice to have the possibility of foresight or fault to the aggravating result subjectively. This paper introduces two kinds of theories in theory and practice in our country, that is, "simultaneous negligence and elimination" and "carrying out excessive limitation". Chapter three: the explanation of simultaneous negligence is not acceptable. Although it has some advantages, it also has defects that can not be ignored. Chapter four: it is not advisable to carry out the theory of excessive limitation. In practice, the application of the theory of excessive limitation is fundamentally wrong. Chapter V: the determination of joint crime in aggravated consequential crime. The individual thinks that "negligence" is the element of crime responsibility, and has no influence on the establishment of joint crime, but it objectively requires the realization of typical risk created by the joint act to increase the responsibility for the result. Subjectively, the actor is expected to foresee the aggravating result and identify the risk created by the common act.
【學位授予單位】：浙江大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D924

【相似文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 金澤剛;結果加重犯的結構及其未遂形態(tài)問題[J];上海交通大學學報(社會科學版);2001年02期

2 熊贊研;結果加重犯的構成透析[J];中國刑事法雜志;2001年06期

3 任志中;結果加重犯未遂問題探析[J];杭州商學院學報;2002年04期

4 馮景旭;周江;;論結果加重犯[J];研究生法學;2003年01期

5 彭衛(wèi)東;結果加重犯新探[J];武漢公安干部學院學報;2005年02期

6 王文青;;結果加重犯[J];理論界;2005年12期

7 李建軍;王文青;姚遠;;結果加重犯研究[J];臺聲.新視角;2006年01期

8 楊閱;;淺論我國刑法中結果加重犯的解讀與誤讀[J];黑龍江教育學院學報;2006年03期

9 范連玉;夏聰玲;王志強;;海峽兩岸結果加重犯之比較研究[J];商洛師范專科學校學報;2006年02期

10 吳海春;陳洪兵;;結果加重犯理論及立法的再檢討——以故意傷害致死、強奸致死和搶劫致死為切入點[J];遼寧警專學報;2006年06期

相關會議論文 前1條

1 曾，

本文編號：2027157