论毒品犯罪的共犯认定思路
|
摘要
毒品犯罪中,在各参与主体共同策划、分工协作、共同完成犯罪的典型情况下,认定共犯关系并不困难,但在各相关主体之间联络松散、行为相对独立、利益关联度弱的边际地带,共犯关系的认定疑难复杂、界限模糊。从共同犯罪的本质出发,共同犯罪意志是危害行为的参与者成立共犯的内在依据。在司法实践中,对他人实施的毒品犯罪行为客观上起到了帮助或者促进作用的行为,要认定为毒品犯罪共犯,应当具备以下三个条件:一是对行为人而言,应当具有参与到他人实施的毒品犯罪中的意思表示;二是各共同参与人对于相互配合共同完成该毒品犯罪达成了合意;三是对其他参与者而言,行为人实施该行为的主要意义在于帮助毒品犯罪的完成。只有按照上述思路进行司法认定,才能够真正做到不枉不纵,罚当其罪。
In drug crimes,it is quite difficult to identify the accomplice relationship under the atypical circumstances where the links among the participants are loose. Starting from the essence of joint crime,the will of joint crime is the internal basis for the establishment of accomplice by the participants of harmful acts. When identifying an accomplice who has objectively helped or promoted certain drug crime committed by others,three conditions should be met. Firstly,the actor should have the intention to participate in the crime; Secondly,the joint participants reach a consensus to cooperate with each other to complete the crime; Thirdly,for other participants,the main significance of the actor to carry out the behavior is to help complete the crime. Only in accordance with the preceding ideas of judicial determination,can we truly achieve the balance of crime and punishment.
In drug crimes,it is quite difficult to identify the accomplice relationship under the atypical circumstances where the links among the participants are loose. Starting from the essence of joint crime,the will of joint crime is the internal basis for the establishment of accomplice by the participants of harmful acts. When identifying an accomplice who has objectively helped or promoted certain drug crime committed by others,three conditions should be met. Firstly,the actor should have the intention to participate in the crime; Secondly,the joint participants reach a consensus to cooperate with each other to complete the crime; Thirdly,for other participants,the main significance of the actor to carry out the behavior is to help complete the crime. Only in accordance with the preceding ideas of judicial determination,can we truly achieve the balance of crime and punishment.
引文
[1]王鼎.涉毒案件中共同犯罪如何认定[EB/OL].(2013-07-04)[2019-02-12]. https://www. chinacourt. org/article/detail/2013/07/id/1021570. shtml.
[2]最高人民法院刑事审判第一、二庭.刑事审判参考(2005年第6集)[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:47-51.
[3]陈忠林.刑法散得集[M].北京:法律出版社,2003:256-261.
[4]张波.罪过的本质及其司法运用[M].北京:法律出版社,2014:212.
[5]张洪成.毒品犯罪共犯成立问题研究[J].石河子大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2013,27(03):68-72.
[6]盛文超.毒品犯罪主观故意认定问题研究[D].西南政法大学,2009:9-10.
[7]大塚仁.刑法概说:总论[M].冯军,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003:287.
[8]西田典之.日本刑法总论[M].刘明祥,王昭武,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007:293.
[9]陈兴良.刑法的知识转型(学说史)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2012:559.
[10]高桥则夫.规范论和刑罚解释论[M].戴波,李世阳,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2011:150.
[11]丰田兼彦.论共犯的一般成立要件[J].王昭武,译.法治现代化研究,2018,2(06):180.
[12]劳东燕.风险分配与刑法归责:因果关系理论的反思[J].政法论坛,2010,28(06):95-107.
(1)参见:上海市浦东新区人民法院(2010)浦刑初字第1473号判决书。
(2)参见:重庆市第五中级人民法院(2013)渝五中法刑初字第0030号判决书;重庆市高级人民法院(2013)渝高法刑终字第00169号判决书。
[2]最高人民法院刑事审判第一、二庭.刑事审判参考(2005年第6集)[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:47-51.
[3]陈忠林.刑法散得集[M].北京:法律出版社,2003:256-261.
[4]张波.罪过的本质及其司法运用[M].北京:法律出版社,2014:212.
[5]张洪成.毒品犯罪共犯成立问题研究[J].石河子大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2013,27(03):68-72.
[6]盛文超.毒品犯罪主观故意认定问题研究[D].西南政法大学,2009:9-10.
[7]大塚仁.刑法概说:总论[M].冯军,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003:287.
[8]西田典之.日本刑法总论[M].刘明祥,王昭武,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007:293.
[9]陈兴良.刑法的知识转型(学说史)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2012:559.
[10]高桥则夫.规范论和刑罚解释论[M].戴波,李世阳,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2011:150.
[11]丰田兼彦.论共犯的一般成立要件[J].王昭武,译.法治现代化研究,2018,2(06):180.
[12]劳东燕.风险分配与刑法归责:因果关系理论的反思[J].政法论坛,2010,28(06):95-107.
(1)参见:上海市浦东新区人民法院(2010)浦刑初字第1473号判决书。
(2)参见:重庆市第五中级人民法院(2013)渝五中法刑初字第0030号判决书;重庆市高级人民法院(2013)渝高法刑终字第00169号判决书。