间接正犯与教唆犯界分之重构
|
摘要
间接正犯与教唆犯如何界分在我国争论不休,随着否定间接正犯的"异枝"现象的出现,界分问题的概念基础似乎被掏空,但此观点立论存疑,仍应肯定间接正犯概念。在此视域下,正犯与共犯的区分又是摆在眼前的根基性问题,随着正犯理论的客观实质化,实质客观说更显优势,且在此领域内的犯罪事实支配理论因更能适应我国刑法规定脱颖而出。其项下的意思支配说则成为界分间接正犯与教唆犯的有效标准,但意思支配说也并非完美,仍需完善。
The distinctions of indirect principal and the instigator are still inconclusive. With the emergence of the phenomenon of " independent" indirect criminals,the conceptual basis of the distinctive problem seems to be hollowed out. However,this view is doubtful and the concept of indirect criminality should still be affirmed. In this view,the distinction between the offense and the accomplice is the fundamental problem we will solve. With the theory of the offense become more objective,the objective theory is more advantageous. And the theory of criminal facts in this field is capable,and can adapted to the provisions of our criminal law. The meaning of dominance under the theory is an effective standard for distinct the indirect criminals and instigators. But the meaning of domination is not perfect and still should be improved.
The distinctions of indirect principal and the instigator are still inconclusive. With the emergence of the phenomenon of " independent" indirect criminals,the conceptual basis of the distinctive problem seems to be hollowed out. However,this view is doubtful and the concept of indirect criminality should still be affirmed. In this view,the distinction between the offense and the accomplice is the fundamental problem we will solve. With the theory of the offense become more objective,the objective theory is more advantageous. And the theory of criminal facts in this field is capable,and can adapted to the provisions of our criminal law. The meaning of dominance under the theory is an effective standard for distinct the indirect criminals and instigators. But the meaning of domination is not perfect and still should be improved.
引文
[1]刘艳红.论正犯理论的客观实质化[J].中国法学,2011(4):125-142.
[2]阎二鹏.论间接正犯概念的消解[J].法学论坛,2011(4):65-72.
[3]刘明祥.间接正犯概念之否定:单一正犯体系的视角[J].法学研究,2015(6):98-115.
[4]黎宏,姚培培.间接正犯概念不必存在[J].中国刑事法杂志,2014(4):34-47.
[5]钱叶六.双层区分制下正犯与共犯的区分[J].法学研究,2012(1):126-143.
[6]郭莉.间接正犯的概念及与教唆犯的界分[J].西部法学评论,2017(2):1-11.
[7]马聪.论正犯与共犯区分之中国选择[J].山东社会科学,2018(3):169-175.
[8]张明楷.刑法学[M].北京:法律出版社,2016.
[9]林维.间接正犯研究[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1998.
[10]张明楷.外国刑法纲要[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2007.
[11]黎宏.刑法学[M].北京:法律出版社,2012.
[12]克劳斯·罗克辛.德国刑法总论:第2卷[M].劳东燕,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2009.
[13]江南.论教唆犯与间接正犯的界分标准[J].中南民族大学学报,2017(4):127-130.
[14]张伟.我国犯罪参与体系下正犯概念不宜实质化:基于中、日、德刑法的比较研究[J].刑事法杂志,2013(10):23-32.
[15]冯军.刑法中的自我答责[J].中国法学,2006(3):93-103.
(1)案情如下:被告人刘某对其丈夫金某起了杀心,指使自己不满14岁的女儿毒死了自己的丈夫。会议讨论后一致认定,被告人刘某的女儿不具有刑事责任能力,被告人刘某唆使其女儿投毒杀人,刘某和其女儿不成立共同犯罪,被告人刘某不是教唆犯而应当认定为间接正犯,所以对于刘某不能适用教唆犯的相关条款处理,而应当按照其实施的故意杀人行为定罪处罚。
(2)《刑法》第25条第1款规定:“共同犯罪是指一人以上共同故意犯罪。”
[2]阎二鹏.论间接正犯概念的消解[J].法学论坛,2011(4):65-72.
[3]刘明祥.间接正犯概念之否定:单一正犯体系的视角[J].法学研究,2015(6):98-115.
[4]黎宏,姚培培.间接正犯概念不必存在[J].中国刑事法杂志,2014(4):34-47.
[5]钱叶六.双层区分制下正犯与共犯的区分[J].法学研究,2012(1):126-143.
[6]郭莉.间接正犯的概念及与教唆犯的界分[J].西部法学评论,2017(2):1-11.
[7]马聪.论正犯与共犯区分之中国选择[J].山东社会科学,2018(3):169-175.
[8]张明楷.刑法学[M].北京:法律出版社,2016.
[9]林维.间接正犯研究[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1998.
[10]张明楷.外国刑法纲要[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2007.
[11]黎宏.刑法学[M].北京:法律出版社,2012.
[12]克劳斯·罗克辛.德国刑法总论:第2卷[M].劳东燕,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2009.
[13]江南.论教唆犯与间接正犯的界分标准[J].中南民族大学学报,2017(4):127-130.
[14]张伟.我国犯罪参与体系下正犯概念不宜实质化:基于中、日、德刑法的比较研究[J].刑事法杂志,2013(10):23-32.
[15]冯军.刑法中的自我答责[J].中国法学,2006(3):93-103.
(1)案情如下:被告人刘某对其丈夫金某起了杀心,指使自己不满14岁的女儿毒死了自己的丈夫。会议讨论后一致认定,被告人刘某的女儿不具有刑事责任能力,被告人刘某唆使其女儿投毒杀人,刘某和其女儿不成立共同犯罪,被告人刘某不是教唆犯而应当认定为间接正犯,所以对于刘某不能适用教唆犯的相关条款处理,而应当按照其实施的故意杀人行为定罪处罚。
(2)《刑法》第25条第1款规定:“共同犯罪是指一人以上共同故意犯罪。”