抢劫罪客体研究
|
摘要
抢劫罪是目前司法实践中多发疑难的犯罪之一,长期以来刑法学界非常重视对其研究,也取得了一些成果。但是,由于对犯罪客体在个罪的理论梳理与司法运作中存在的巨大价值认识不足,要么在犯罪构成体系中根本否定犯罪客体要件,要么在刑法学总论中强调客体要件而在分论的个罪注解中轻浮地一笔带过,导致无论是在理论上还是实践中,往往缺乏理论上的逻辑自洽性和司法指导意义,所以有必要对抢劫罪客体作一番理论上的梳理,以有效的解决争议问题。
本文除前言外,主体部分为三章,以下分而述之:
首先为前言部分,主要阐述研究抢劫罪客体问题的重要意义,以及本文从客体一般理论出发对抢劫罪客体进行理论梳理,并运用客体理论对疑难问题进行分析的写作思路和逻辑结构。
第一章为犯罪客体概述。本章分为三节,第一节首先阐述了我国刑法学界关于犯罪客体概念的主要观点,有“社会关系说”、“权利说”、“法律关系说”、“社会利益说”以及“法益说”,其中笔者赞同“法益说”,认为“法益说”将犯罪客体理解为刑法所保护的法益,使其概念更加科学,可以避免犯罪客体内容的精神化。第二节是关于犯罪客体的上位概念。犯罪客体实质上是法益,但法益的范围比较广泛,凡是法律所保护的利益都可称为法益。由于刑法与其他法所保护的利益都是法益,民法也保护财产,因此只有犯罪行为所侵犯而为刑法所保护的法益,才能成为犯罪客体。第三节分析了犯罪客体的功能和作用,分析了两种最重要的功能,评价功能和定罪功能。其中犯罪客体是我国犯罪构成的规范评价要素,起着规范评价的作用,虽然我国的犯罪构成是一个整体,行为符合整个犯罪构成就具有违法性,从而也就完成了规范评价,但并不排斥在犯罪构成内部规范评价因素作为一个要件而存在。我国犯罪构成要件既具有理论上的整体性,同时各要件又具有一定的独立性并具有独立的功能。犯罪构成要件不仅仅是简单的事实判断,而且还包含了规范评价的要素。而且,仅仅就刑法规定的犯罪客观方面并不足以完成对犯罪的全面评价。因此,犯罪客体作为犯罪构成中的规范评价要素,是完全有必要的,这是刑法人权保障在犯罪构成领域的体现。
第二章对抢劫罪的犯罪客体进行了理论梳理。首先论证在模型的意义上描述客体,必须是在其所有个案最多可能的情况下各自侵犯的法益的集合之间求交集——是个罪在所有情况下都必然侵犯的法益,且该法益的确定对行为性质的决定具有重要的提示性意义;在此前提下再区分该法益是单数(简单客体)还是复数(复杂客体)形态。因此,就“交集”的意义而言,所有抢劫个案必然侵犯人身权益和财产权益,体现为双重客体。
然后论证侵犯人身权利,在抢劫罪中行为人是通过抢劫行为达到犯罪目的。抢劫行为表现为以暴力或者以当场实施暴力相威胁,或者采用其他的人身强制方法,当场劫取他人财物。抢劫行为是复行为,由方法行为和目的行为组成。方法行为是指为劫取财物而实施的暴力、胁迫或者其他的人身强制行为。目的行为是劫取财物的行为,也就是说,在抢劫罪中,是以侵犯人身权利为手段,以侵犯财产权利为目的。而方法行为中的暴力,胁迫达到何种程度才构成抢劫罪我国刑法并无明文规定。笔者认为,抢劫罪的本质特征是用暴力,胁迫等方法排除被害人的反抗,以夺取其财物。如果是很轻微的暴力或者采用胁迫方法,根本不足以抑制被害人的反抗,那就不能视为抢劫中的手段行为,其劫取财物的行为也就不具有强取的性质,即不能评价为抢劫。由此可见,抢劫罪的暴力,胁迫必须达到足以抑制被害人反抗的程度,这是抢劫罪的性质所决定的。
最后论证抢劫罪客体对行为方式认定的影响,由抢劫罪双重客体的逻辑顺序所决定,抢劫行为可以分解为手段行为和目的行为,手段行为是指为了劫取财物而实施的暴力,胁迫或其他人身强制行为;目的行为是指劫取他人财物的行为,即当场夺取他人财物,或者迫使他人当场交付财物的行为,二者结合构成完整的抢劫行为。其实就行为的单复而言,在法律进行“规范”意义上的抢劫罪仍然是一个行为——抢劫行为;在此作出目的行为与手段行为的区分是对抢劫行为进行剖析的一个要求,借此可以对抢劫行为的事实与规范获得透彻的了解。其中胁迫方法是指为了使被害人不敢反抗,以便当场占有其则物,而以当场实施暴力相威胁。至于行为人是否真有实施暴力的意思,以及是否确有实施那种暴力的能力,则在所不问。采用胁迫方法抢劫的特点有:一是以行为人自己或受其支配的他人将立即对被害人实施暴力相威胁,例如,以当场杀害、伤害、殴打等相恐吓。威胁的方式多种多样,既可能是口头的,也可能是书面的;既可能是手势、动作,也可能是眼神或表情。但如果没有任何胁迫的表现,只是被害人自己胆小感到恐惧,眼见行为人拿走其财物而不敢制止,则不能构成抢劫罪。二是胁迫的目的是为了使被害人不敢反抗,而当场夺取或者迫使被害人当场交付财物。如果制造恐怖威胁他人,不是为了排除被害人的反抗,而是要引起混乱,趁机窃取则物,则不构成抢劫罪;如果采用胁迫方法,是要求被害人答应日后交付财物,也不能构成抢劫罪,而有可能构成敲诈勒索罪。
第三章是客体理论在抢劫罪争议问题的应用,主要分析了抢劫罪既未遂问题。抢劫罪的双重客体存在主次之分,而之所以存在主次之分,是因为抢劫罪的手段行为侵害人身权益,目的行为侵害财产权益,而手段行为是为目的行为服务的。抢劫罪被规定在“侵犯财产罪”一章中,其侵犯的主要客体理应理解为财产权益,正是因为行为人为实现其取财的目的,采取暴力、胁迫或其他手段侵犯他人的人身权益,才使得抢劫罪不同于其他单纯的劫财行为,具有更为严重的社会危害性。正因为财产权益是主要客体,并结合“实害说”,笔者认为,抢劫罪基本犯既未遂形态的区分应以财产权益是否受到实际损害为标准。而财产权益是否受到实际损害应以被害人是否失去对财产的实际控制为限,所以笔者同意第一种观点的说法。至于行为人对被害人造成轻伤后果而并未抢到财物,以抢劫未遂论处,不存在罪刑不适应,出现轻纵罪犯的情形。因为根据我国刑法第234条之规定,故意伤害他人身体,造成轻伤后果的,是处三年以下有期徒刑、拘役或者管制。而抢劫罪基本犯的法定刑是三年以上十年以下有期徒刑。而未遂是可以比照既遂从轻、减轻处罚的,所以在实际量刑中,对于上述情形,即使未抢到财物,也可以不从轻、减轻处罚的。抢劫罪的暴力、胁迫或者其他人身强制手段,必须达到足以抑制被害人反抗的程度。而只有达到该程度的手段行为,才会在抢劫罪的意义上侵犯人身权利。由于侵犯人身权利是成立抢劫罪的前提,所以第二种观点以是否侵犯了受害人的人身权利为既未遂标准,实际混淆了犯罪成立标准和既遂标准。
后文论述“以危险方法抢夺”是否应定抢劫罪、抢劫罪客体对加重处罚情节认定的影响、以及关于“携带凶器抢夺”和“转化型抢劫”等问题。在“以危险方法抢夺”是否应定抢劫罪问题上,笔者认为,对“以危险方法抢夺”的定性,不可一概而论,关键看“以危险方法抢夺”的行为是否符合侵犯双重客体的逻辑顺序。在对加重处罚情节认定的问题上,从抢劫罪客体的角度看,在这八种情形下,行为人不仅仅侵犯双重客体,即一般的人身权利和财产权利,还侵犯刑法所保护的其他重要法益,表现为多重客体。最后,关于“携带凶器抢夺”和“转化型抢劫”,笔者认为对于“携带凶器抢夺”和“转化型抢劫”,是刑法作出的特别规定,在本质上,携带凶器抢夺实际仍然是抢夺行为,而转化型抢劫是犯盗窃,诈骗、抢夺罪,为窝藏赃物、抗拒抓捕或者毁灭罪证而当场使用暴力或者以暴力相威胁。两者的刑法设置主要是考虑到抢劫罪双重客体的本质制约——在侵犯财产权利的过程中伴随着对人身权利侵犯的可能性或现实性。
Robbery is the current judicial practice of multiple, and knotty one of crime, criminal law scholars for a long time attached great importance to its research, and have made some achievements, but because of a criminal offense in the object theory carding and the functioning of the judiciary in the tremendous value insufficient understanding, or a crime in the fundamental system of denying the object of the crime element, or General in the Criminal Law and stressed that the object element in the theory of the crime in the footnotes to a stroke with the frivolous, resulting either in theory or practice, often will the lack of self-consistent theory of logic and justice guiding significance, it is necessary to object to a robbery theory in order, effective solution to the disputed issue. Robbery is the double criminality object to assault as a means of violating property for the purpose, which is the main object of property rights, personal rights and interests are secondary object, which is the basic nature of the crime of robbery by the decision. In Qinfanrenjuanquan Lee understanding, and means to act only against each other to the extent of inhibition, as Qinfanrenjuanquan be beneficial. Therefore, only robbery profound understanding of the object's internal structure and logic sequence, the object can be effectively utilized to solve the robbery theory of difficult problems.
In this paper, in addition to the preamble and the conclusion, the main part of the three chapters, and in the following points:
The preamble of the first, the preamble of the main research robbery on the importance of the issue of the object and the object of this paper from the general theory, the object of the robbery theoretical order, and use the theory of the object for analysis of difficult problems writing ideas and logical structure .
The first chapter outlines the object of the crime. This chapter is divided into three, section I first expounded China's criminal law scholars on the main concept of the object crime perspective, "said social relations", "right", "legal relationship", "social benefits" and "Law Yi said" , the author endorsed the "legal interests", saying that "legal interest" will be the object of the crime interpreted as protected by the Criminal Law Act benefits to more scientific concepts, contents of the object can be avoided crime of the spirit. On the one hand, because the community is the people-to-people relations between the ties, which is not specific and realistic, but abstract. If the object of the crime is a crime elements, and element is the need to recognize, then in itself should be a specific, objective things. On the other hand are usually people that the object of the crime is a crime violated by acts of social relations, and includes the concept of "abuse" and "threat", which in itself shows that the threat is against an objective fact that the concept of causality, it is certainly the object of crime the objective is really something, and it is impossible concept of a product. In short, the interests of objectivity and truth, the violation or threatened by the always interest, not what social relations. Relations difficult or even impossible to have been violated, the object will be defined as a crime of benefits, and can avoid the complexity of the object concept. Economic crime as an example, as economic crime encroaches on the interests of the community, so it is bound to involve multiple social relations, and legal interests is a single dimension, that is, every single one of the benefits are not as multiple understand. At the same time law is specific benefits, the benefits of understanding can not be abstract and arbitrary interpretation of the expansion. But will the concept of crimes defined as the object of benefits, and ease of handling a crime in the sub-complex situation, more comprehensive. Section II is the object of epistasis on Crime concept. The object of the crime is essentially Act benefits, but the benefits of a broader scope, where the interests protected by the law known as Act can be beneficial, a scholar of benefits will be defined as the basic principles in accordance with the Constitution, the protection of the law, objectively, could be violated or the threat of the life of interests. Because of the Penal Code and other laws to protect the interests of all benefits, such as the protection of property subject to criminal law, of course, the benefits of belonging to criminal law, civil law but also the protection of property in the Civil Law Act is beneficial. Only criminal acts and violations of the Penal Code for benefits, which are protected by law in order to become the object of the crime, therefore the object of criminal law is the concept of higher-level benefits. Based on this, in my view, will be the object of the crime defined as protected by the Criminal Law Act benefits, and more accurate. Finally the author of the crime in the third quarter of the object function and role of the two most important functions, the evaluation function and convicted function, which is the object of criminal offenses constitute a normative evaluation factor, plays a role in regulating the evaluation, although China a crime is an entity, acts constitute a crime on the whole is unlawful, it will complete a standardized evaluation, but does not exclude the internal norms in crime constitutes an element of evaluation factors as exists. China's criminal law theory that crime constitutes organic unity of the common elements of the crime revealed established at the same time, each with different functions and separate crime could not explain the establishment. Therefore, the elements of a crime both in theory as a whole, the elements also have a certain independence and have independent functions. Elements of a crime is not just simple facts judgment, but also contain elements of evaluation norms. Moreover, the only provisions of the Criminal Code on criminal objective is not sufficient to complete a comprehensive evaluation of the crime. Therefore, the object of the crime as a crime in standardizing evaluation factor, it is completely necessary, it is criminal law the protection of human rights constitute a crime in the field of expression.
Chapter II of robbery crime carding a theoretical object. Robbery is the first demonstration of double object, the model described in the sense of the object, it should be up to all of its cases, where possible violations of the law of their respective beneficial for the intersection between the set - is a crime in all circumstances necessarily violations of the law benefits , and the benefits of the Act to determine the nature of the decision is indicative of significance in this premise of the Act to distinguish between the beneficial is the singular (simple object) or plural (complex object) morphology. Of course, "all", but legislators and jurists from the lives of a large number of prototype of a broadly empirical summary of this crime in those excluded in the same urgent need to protect the legal interests Penal Code, we will He objects in the crime in the elements for this corresponding meaning. Therefore, the object of robbery only on the definition of crime under the provisions of the 1996 model. "Intersection" sense, all robbery cases inevitable Qinfanrenjuanquan benefits and property rights, embodied the dual object.
Lee then demonstrated Qinfanrenjuanquan, robbery, the perpetrator is achieved through acts of criminal purpose of robbery. Robbery behavior to the use of violence or threat of violence against the spot, or to use other methods of physical mandatory spot seizure property. Robbery is complex, acts by the method of composition and purpose. Methods behavior is defined as seizure of property and the implementation of violence, coercion or other physical coercion. Seizure of property is the purpose of the act, means that in the robbery, is Qinfanrenjuanquan Lee as a means to violations of property rights for the purpose. The method of acts of violence, coercion to the extent to which a robbery China's criminal law does not expressly provide. China's criminal law theory and judicial practice requirements generally do not advocate violence against the victim to the extent of inhibition, that as long as the actors have the intention of robbery and possession of property in order to impose on the victims of violence, the general should be treated with robbery, the reason is that sometimes the same the violence on the victims may have different varying degrees, difficult to grasp the standards identified, but in my view, the essential characteristic of robbery using violence, coercion, and other methods exclude victims resistance in order to seize their property. If it is very mild violence or the use of coercive methods, simply not enough to inhibit the victim's resistance, it can not be seen as a means of acts of looting, seizure of property also has forcibly and not of the nature that can not be judged to robbery, the this visible, robbery of violence, coercion must be significant enough to inhibit the degree of resistance victims, it is the nature of the crime of robbery by the decision. The final proof robbery object of conduct that the impact of the object by double robbery decided by the logical order, robbery means can be divided into acts and purposes, means conduct refers to the seizure of property by violence, coercion or other physical coercion; purpose is seizure of the property of others, that is the spot to seize other people's property, or forcing others to the spot delivery of property, a combination of both a complete robbery. In fact, the behavior of single complex, in the law "regulating" sense of the robbery is still a behavior - robbery; purpose of this act and the means to make the distinction between acts of looting behavior analysis of a request to can the fact that the robbery and standardize access to a good understanding.
Chapter III is the object of controversy in the robbery of applications, mainly analyzed both attempted robbery, "snatch to dangerous methods" should be set whether the robbery and robbery object found on the aggravating circumstances and the impact on the "snatch carrying lethal weapons "and" transformed robbery. " In both attempted robbery on the issue of whether the property rights and interests should be subject to physical damage as the standard. But whether the property rights and interests should be actual damage to the victim lost control of the real property subject. "Snatch to dangerous methods" should be set whether the robbery issue, the author believes that the "dangerous methods snatch" qualitative, not to generalize, depends on "dangerous methods snatch" behavior is consistent with the object of double logical order. The aggravating circumstances in that issue, robbery from the perspective of the object, in this eight cases, the perpetrator not only violations of the double object, both general personal rights and property rights, but also violations of the criminal law to protect other important Act benefits, and performance of multiple objects. Finally, on "carrying lethal weapons snatch" and "transformed robbery", the author considers that the "carrying lethal weapons snatch" and "transformed robbery" is the Special Criminal Code provides that, in essence, to carry lethal weapons snatch is still snatch the actual act, while transformed robbery committed theft, fraud, grabbed the crime for harboring stolen property, resisting arrest or destruction of incriminating evidence and to spot the use of violence or threat of violence. Two of the Penal Code the provision of major robbery in the light of the nature of the object dual constraints - property rights violations in the course along with violations of personal rights, the possibility or reality.
本文除前言外,主体部分为三章,以下分而述之:
首先为前言部分,主要阐述研究抢劫罪客体问题的重要意义,以及本文从客体一般理论出发对抢劫罪客体进行理论梳理,并运用客体理论对疑难问题进行分析的写作思路和逻辑结构。
第一章为犯罪客体概述。本章分为三节,第一节首先阐述了我国刑法学界关于犯罪客体概念的主要观点,有“社会关系说”、“权利说”、“法律关系说”、“社会利益说”以及“法益说”,其中笔者赞同“法益说”,认为“法益说”将犯罪客体理解为刑法所保护的法益,使其概念更加科学,可以避免犯罪客体内容的精神化。第二节是关于犯罪客体的上位概念。犯罪客体实质上是法益,但法益的范围比较广泛,凡是法律所保护的利益都可称为法益。由于刑法与其他法所保护的利益都是法益,民法也保护财产,因此只有犯罪行为所侵犯而为刑法所保护的法益,才能成为犯罪客体。第三节分析了犯罪客体的功能和作用,分析了两种最重要的功能,评价功能和定罪功能。其中犯罪客体是我国犯罪构成的规范评价要素,起着规范评价的作用,虽然我国的犯罪构成是一个整体,行为符合整个犯罪构成就具有违法性,从而也就完成了规范评价,但并不排斥在犯罪构成内部规范评价因素作为一个要件而存在。我国犯罪构成要件既具有理论上的整体性,同时各要件又具有一定的独立性并具有独立的功能。犯罪构成要件不仅仅是简单的事实判断,而且还包含了规范评价的要素。而且,仅仅就刑法规定的犯罪客观方面并不足以完成对犯罪的全面评价。因此,犯罪客体作为犯罪构成中的规范评价要素,是完全有必要的,这是刑法人权保障在犯罪构成领域的体现。
第二章对抢劫罪的犯罪客体进行了理论梳理。首先论证在模型的意义上描述客体,必须是在其所有个案最多可能的情况下各自侵犯的法益的集合之间求交集——是个罪在所有情况下都必然侵犯的法益,且该法益的确定对行为性质的决定具有重要的提示性意义;在此前提下再区分该法益是单数(简单客体)还是复数(复杂客体)形态。因此,就“交集”的意义而言,所有抢劫个案必然侵犯人身权益和财产权益,体现为双重客体。
然后论证侵犯人身权利,在抢劫罪中行为人是通过抢劫行为达到犯罪目的。抢劫行为表现为以暴力或者以当场实施暴力相威胁,或者采用其他的人身强制方法,当场劫取他人财物。抢劫行为是复行为,由方法行为和目的行为组成。方法行为是指为劫取财物而实施的暴力、胁迫或者其他的人身强制行为。目的行为是劫取财物的行为,也就是说,在抢劫罪中,是以侵犯人身权利为手段,以侵犯财产权利为目的。而方法行为中的暴力,胁迫达到何种程度才构成抢劫罪我国刑法并无明文规定。笔者认为,抢劫罪的本质特征是用暴力,胁迫等方法排除被害人的反抗,以夺取其财物。如果是很轻微的暴力或者采用胁迫方法,根本不足以抑制被害人的反抗,那就不能视为抢劫中的手段行为,其劫取财物的行为也就不具有强取的性质,即不能评价为抢劫。由此可见,抢劫罪的暴力,胁迫必须达到足以抑制被害人反抗的程度,这是抢劫罪的性质所决定的。
最后论证抢劫罪客体对行为方式认定的影响,由抢劫罪双重客体的逻辑顺序所决定,抢劫行为可以分解为手段行为和目的行为,手段行为是指为了劫取财物而实施的暴力,胁迫或其他人身强制行为;目的行为是指劫取他人财物的行为,即当场夺取他人财物,或者迫使他人当场交付财物的行为,二者结合构成完整的抢劫行为。其实就行为的单复而言,在法律进行“规范”意义上的抢劫罪仍然是一个行为——抢劫行为;在此作出目的行为与手段行为的区分是对抢劫行为进行剖析的一个要求,借此可以对抢劫行为的事实与规范获得透彻的了解。其中胁迫方法是指为了使被害人不敢反抗,以便当场占有其则物,而以当场实施暴力相威胁。至于行为人是否真有实施暴力的意思,以及是否确有实施那种暴力的能力,则在所不问。采用胁迫方法抢劫的特点有:一是以行为人自己或受其支配的他人将立即对被害人实施暴力相威胁,例如,以当场杀害、伤害、殴打等相恐吓。威胁的方式多种多样,既可能是口头的,也可能是书面的;既可能是手势、动作,也可能是眼神或表情。但如果没有任何胁迫的表现,只是被害人自己胆小感到恐惧,眼见行为人拿走其财物而不敢制止,则不能构成抢劫罪。二是胁迫的目的是为了使被害人不敢反抗,而当场夺取或者迫使被害人当场交付财物。如果制造恐怖威胁他人,不是为了排除被害人的反抗,而是要引起混乱,趁机窃取则物,则不构成抢劫罪;如果采用胁迫方法,是要求被害人答应日后交付财物,也不能构成抢劫罪,而有可能构成敲诈勒索罪。
第三章是客体理论在抢劫罪争议问题的应用,主要分析了抢劫罪既未遂问题。抢劫罪的双重客体存在主次之分,而之所以存在主次之分,是因为抢劫罪的手段行为侵害人身权益,目的行为侵害财产权益,而手段行为是为目的行为服务的。抢劫罪被规定在“侵犯财产罪”一章中,其侵犯的主要客体理应理解为财产权益,正是因为行为人为实现其取财的目的,采取暴力、胁迫或其他手段侵犯他人的人身权益,才使得抢劫罪不同于其他单纯的劫财行为,具有更为严重的社会危害性。正因为财产权益是主要客体,并结合“实害说”,笔者认为,抢劫罪基本犯既未遂形态的区分应以财产权益是否受到实际损害为标准。而财产权益是否受到实际损害应以被害人是否失去对财产的实际控制为限,所以笔者同意第一种观点的说法。至于行为人对被害人造成轻伤后果而并未抢到财物,以抢劫未遂论处,不存在罪刑不适应,出现轻纵罪犯的情形。因为根据我国刑法第234条之规定,故意伤害他人身体,造成轻伤后果的,是处三年以下有期徒刑、拘役或者管制。而抢劫罪基本犯的法定刑是三年以上十年以下有期徒刑。而未遂是可以比照既遂从轻、减轻处罚的,所以在实际量刑中,对于上述情形,即使未抢到财物,也可以不从轻、减轻处罚的。抢劫罪的暴力、胁迫或者其他人身强制手段,必须达到足以抑制被害人反抗的程度。而只有达到该程度的手段行为,才会在抢劫罪的意义上侵犯人身权利。由于侵犯人身权利是成立抢劫罪的前提,所以第二种观点以是否侵犯了受害人的人身权利为既未遂标准,实际混淆了犯罪成立标准和既遂标准。
后文论述“以危险方法抢夺”是否应定抢劫罪、抢劫罪客体对加重处罚情节认定的影响、以及关于“携带凶器抢夺”和“转化型抢劫”等问题。在“以危险方法抢夺”是否应定抢劫罪问题上,笔者认为,对“以危险方法抢夺”的定性,不可一概而论,关键看“以危险方法抢夺”的行为是否符合侵犯双重客体的逻辑顺序。在对加重处罚情节认定的问题上,从抢劫罪客体的角度看,在这八种情形下,行为人不仅仅侵犯双重客体,即一般的人身权利和财产权利,还侵犯刑法所保护的其他重要法益,表现为多重客体。最后,关于“携带凶器抢夺”和“转化型抢劫”,笔者认为对于“携带凶器抢夺”和“转化型抢劫”,是刑法作出的特别规定,在本质上,携带凶器抢夺实际仍然是抢夺行为,而转化型抢劫是犯盗窃,诈骗、抢夺罪,为窝藏赃物、抗拒抓捕或者毁灭罪证而当场使用暴力或者以暴力相威胁。两者的刑法设置主要是考虑到抢劫罪双重客体的本质制约——在侵犯财产权利的过程中伴随着对人身权利侵犯的可能性或现实性。
Robbery is the current judicial practice of multiple, and knotty one of crime, criminal law scholars for a long time attached great importance to its research, and have made some achievements, but because of a criminal offense in the object theory carding and the functioning of the judiciary in the tremendous value insufficient understanding, or a crime in the fundamental system of denying the object of the crime element, or General in the Criminal Law and stressed that the object element in the theory of the crime in the footnotes to a stroke with the frivolous, resulting either in theory or practice, often will the lack of self-consistent theory of logic and justice guiding significance, it is necessary to object to a robbery theory in order, effective solution to the disputed issue. Robbery is the double criminality object to assault as a means of violating property for the purpose, which is the main object of property rights, personal rights and interests are secondary object, which is the basic nature of the crime of robbery by the decision. In Qinfanrenjuanquan Lee understanding, and means to act only against each other to the extent of inhibition, as Qinfanrenjuanquan be beneficial. Therefore, only robbery profound understanding of the object's internal structure and logic sequence, the object can be effectively utilized to solve the robbery theory of difficult problems.
In this paper, in addition to the preamble and the conclusion, the main part of the three chapters, and in the following points:
The preamble of the first, the preamble of the main research robbery on the importance of the issue of the object and the object of this paper from the general theory, the object of the robbery theoretical order, and use the theory of the object for analysis of difficult problems writing ideas and logical structure .
The first chapter outlines the object of the crime. This chapter is divided into three, section I first expounded China's criminal law scholars on the main concept of the object crime perspective, "said social relations", "right", "legal relationship", "social benefits" and "Law Yi said" , the author endorsed the "legal interests", saying that "legal interest" will be the object of the crime interpreted as protected by the Criminal Law Act benefits to more scientific concepts, contents of the object can be avoided crime of the spirit. On the one hand, because the community is the people-to-people relations between the ties, which is not specific and realistic, but abstract. If the object of the crime is a crime elements, and element is the need to recognize, then in itself should be a specific, objective things. On the other hand are usually people that the object of the crime is a crime violated by acts of social relations, and includes the concept of "abuse" and "threat", which in itself shows that the threat is against an objective fact that the concept of causality, it is certainly the object of crime the objective is really something, and it is impossible concept of a product. In short, the interests of objectivity and truth, the violation or threatened by the always interest, not what social relations. Relations difficult or even impossible to have been violated, the object will be defined as a crime of benefits, and can avoid the complexity of the object concept. Economic crime as an example, as economic crime encroaches on the interests of the community, so it is bound to involve multiple social relations, and legal interests is a single dimension, that is, every single one of the benefits are not as multiple understand. At the same time law is specific benefits, the benefits of understanding can not be abstract and arbitrary interpretation of the expansion. But will the concept of crimes defined as the object of benefits, and ease of handling a crime in the sub-complex situation, more comprehensive. Section II is the object of epistasis on Crime concept. The object of the crime is essentially Act benefits, but the benefits of a broader scope, where the interests protected by the law known as Act can be beneficial, a scholar of benefits will be defined as the basic principles in accordance with the Constitution, the protection of the law, objectively, could be violated or the threat of the life of interests. Because of the Penal Code and other laws to protect the interests of all benefits, such as the protection of property subject to criminal law, of course, the benefits of belonging to criminal law, civil law but also the protection of property in the Civil Law Act is beneficial. Only criminal acts and violations of the Penal Code for benefits, which are protected by law in order to become the object of the crime, therefore the object of criminal law is the concept of higher-level benefits. Based on this, in my view, will be the object of the crime defined as protected by the Criminal Law Act benefits, and more accurate. Finally the author of the crime in the third quarter of the object function and role of the two most important functions, the evaluation function and convicted function, which is the object of criminal offenses constitute a normative evaluation factor, plays a role in regulating the evaluation, although China a crime is an entity, acts constitute a crime on the whole is unlawful, it will complete a standardized evaluation, but does not exclude the internal norms in crime constitutes an element of evaluation factors as exists. China's criminal law theory that crime constitutes organic unity of the common elements of the crime revealed established at the same time, each with different functions and separate crime could not explain the establishment. Therefore, the elements of a crime both in theory as a whole, the elements also have a certain independence and have independent functions. Elements of a crime is not just simple facts judgment, but also contain elements of evaluation norms. Moreover, the only provisions of the Criminal Code on criminal objective is not sufficient to complete a comprehensive evaluation of the crime. Therefore, the object of the crime as a crime in standardizing evaluation factor, it is completely necessary, it is criminal law the protection of human rights constitute a crime in the field of expression.
Chapter II of robbery crime carding a theoretical object. Robbery is the first demonstration of double object, the model described in the sense of the object, it should be up to all of its cases, where possible violations of the law of their respective beneficial for the intersection between the set - is a crime in all circumstances necessarily violations of the law benefits , and the benefits of the Act to determine the nature of the decision is indicative of significance in this premise of the Act to distinguish between the beneficial is the singular (simple object) or plural (complex object) morphology. Of course, "all", but legislators and jurists from the lives of a large number of prototype of a broadly empirical summary of this crime in those excluded in the same urgent need to protect the legal interests Penal Code, we will He objects in the crime in the elements for this corresponding meaning. Therefore, the object of robbery only on the definition of crime under the provisions of the 1996 model. "Intersection" sense, all robbery cases inevitable Qinfanrenjuanquan benefits and property rights, embodied the dual object.
Lee then demonstrated Qinfanrenjuanquan, robbery, the perpetrator is achieved through acts of criminal purpose of robbery. Robbery behavior to the use of violence or threat of violence against the spot, or to use other methods of physical mandatory spot seizure property. Robbery is complex, acts by the method of composition and purpose. Methods behavior is defined as seizure of property and the implementation of violence, coercion or other physical coercion. Seizure of property is the purpose of the act, means that in the robbery, is Qinfanrenjuanquan Lee as a means to violations of property rights for the purpose. The method of acts of violence, coercion to the extent to which a robbery China's criminal law does not expressly provide. China's criminal law theory and judicial practice requirements generally do not advocate violence against the victim to the extent of inhibition, that as long as the actors have the intention of robbery and possession of property in order to impose on the victims of violence, the general should be treated with robbery, the reason is that sometimes the same the violence on the victims may have different varying degrees, difficult to grasp the standards identified, but in my view, the essential characteristic of robbery using violence, coercion, and other methods exclude victims resistance in order to seize their property. If it is very mild violence or the use of coercive methods, simply not enough to inhibit the victim's resistance, it can not be seen as a means of acts of looting, seizure of property also has forcibly and not of the nature that can not be judged to robbery, the this visible, robbery of violence, coercion must be significant enough to inhibit the degree of resistance victims, it is the nature of the crime of robbery by the decision. The final proof robbery object of conduct that the impact of the object by double robbery decided by the logical order, robbery means can be divided into acts and purposes, means conduct refers to the seizure of property by violence, coercion or other physical coercion; purpose is seizure of the property of others, that is the spot to seize other people's property, or forcing others to the spot delivery of property, a combination of both a complete robbery. In fact, the behavior of single complex, in the law "regulating" sense of the robbery is still a behavior - robbery; purpose of this act and the means to make the distinction between acts of looting behavior analysis of a request to can the fact that the robbery and standardize access to a good understanding.
Chapter III is the object of controversy in the robbery of applications, mainly analyzed both attempted robbery, "snatch to dangerous methods" should be set whether the robbery and robbery object found on the aggravating circumstances and the impact on the "snatch carrying lethal weapons "and" transformed robbery. " In both attempted robbery on the issue of whether the property rights and interests should be subject to physical damage as the standard. But whether the property rights and interests should be actual damage to the victim lost control of the real property subject. "Snatch to dangerous methods" should be set whether the robbery issue, the author believes that the "dangerous methods snatch" qualitative, not to generalize, depends on "dangerous methods snatch" behavior is consistent with the object of double logical order. The aggravating circumstances in that issue, robbery from the perspective of the object, in this eight cases, the perpetrator not only violations of the double object, both general personal rights and property rights, but also violations of the criminal law to protect other important Act benefits, and performance of multiple objects. Finally, on "carrying lethal weapons snatch" and "transformed robbery", the author considers that the "carrying lethal weapons snatch" and "transformed robbery" is the Special Criminal Code provides that, in essence, to carry lethal weapons snatch is still snatch the actual act, while transformed robbery committed theft, fraud, grabbed the crime for harboring stolen property, resisting arrest or destruction of incriminating evidence and to spot the use of violence or threat of violence. Two of the Penal Code the provision of major robbery in the light of the nature of the object dual constraints - property rights violations in the course along with violations of personal rights, the possibility or reality.
引文
1、[意]贝卡利亚著:《论犯罪与刑罚》,黄风译,中国大百科全书出版社1993年版。
2、高铭喧、马克昌主编:《刑法学》,高等教育出版社、北京大学出版社2000年版。
3、马克昌:《近代西方刑法学说史略》,中国检察出版社1996年版。
4、储槐植:《刑事一体化与关系刑法论》,北京大学出版社1997年版。
5、冯亚东:《理性主义与刑法模式》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版。
6、冯亚东:《罪与刑的探索之道》,中国检察出版社2005年版。
7、张明楷:《刑法学》(第二版),法律出版社2003年版。
8、张明楷:《刑法格言的展开》,法律出版社2003年版。
9、陈兴良:《刑法哲学》,中国政法大学出版社2000年版。
10、赵秉志主编:《刑法基础理论探索》,法律出版社2003年版。
11、李洁:《论罪刑法定的实现》,清华大学出版社2006年版。
12、邱兴隆、许章润著:《刑罚学》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版。
13、邱兴隆:《关于惩罚的哲学》,法律出版社2000年版。
14、魏东:《现代刑法的犯罪化根据》,中国民主法制出版社2004年版。
15、王晨:《刑事责任的一般理论》,武汉大学出版社1998年版。
1、冯亚东、刘凤科:《论抢劫罪客体要件之意义》,载《华东政法学院学报》2003年第2期。
2、冯亚东、胡东飞:《犯罪构成模型论》,载《法学研究》2004年第1期。
3、胡东飞:《形式的犯罪概念质疑》,载赵炳寿、向朝阳主编:《刑事法问题研究》,法律出版社2005年版。
4、陈兴良:《社会危害性理论》,载《法学研究》2000年第1期。
5、刘艳红:《我国与大陆法系犯罪论体系之比较研究》,载《中外法学》2004年第5期。
6、李希慧、童伟华:《犯罪客体不要说之检讨》,载《法商研究》2005年第3期。
7、童伟华:《犯罪客体论纲》,载《刑事法评论》(第15卷),陈兴良主编,中国政法大学出版社2004年版。
8、雪千里:《关于犯罪客体的几个问题》,载《中国刑事法杂志》2005年第6期。
9、周光权:《犯罪构成理论与价值评价的关系》,载《环球法律评论》2003年秋季号。
①参见朱晓斌:《抢劫罪中既遂与未遂的探讨》,载《法学》1981年复刊号。
②参见但未丽:《抢劫罪专题整理》,中国人民公安大学出版社2007年版,第168页。
③参见赵秉志:《抢劫中故意杀人的定罪问题》,载《法学研究》1987年第4期。
①参见肖开权:《也论抢劫中故意杀人的定罪问题》,载《法学研究》1988年第3期。
②参见高铭喧:《新编中国刑法学》(上册),中国人民大学出版社1998年版,第473页。
①参见谢彤:《我国刑法中抢劫罪的暴力是否包括故意杀人》,载《华侨大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)2003年第3期。
①高銘喧主编:《刑法学》,法律出版社1983年版,第106页。
①参见高铭喧、马克昌主编:《刑法学》,高等教育出版社、北京大学出版社2000年版,第55页。
②冯亚东:《罪与刑的探索之道》,中国检察出版社2005年版,第23页。
③童伟华:《犯罪客体研究》,武汉大学出版社2005年版,第52页。
④何秉松:《犯罪构成系统论》,中国法制出版社1995年版,第173页。
①何秉松主编:《刑法教科书》,中国法制出版社1997年版,第243页。
②参见张明楷:《法益初论》,中国政法大学出版社2003年版,第181页。
③高铭喧、马克昌主编:《刑法学》,高等教育出版社、北京大学出版社2000年版,第353页。
①参见何秉松主编:《刑法教科书》,中国法制出版社1997年版,第243页。
①张明楷:《法益初论》,中国政法大学出版社2003年版,第167页。
①冯亚东:《罪与刑的探索之道》,中国检察出版社2005年版,第274页。
①参见张明楷:《犯罪论原理》,武汉大学出版社1991年版,第134页。
②参见肖中华:《犯罪构成及其关系论》,中国人民大学出版社2000年版,第174页。
①肖中华:《犯罪构成及其关系论》,中国人民大学出版社2000年版,第174页。
②参见冯亚东:《罪与刑的探索之道》,中国检察出版社2005年版,第280页。
①参见冯亚东:《关于刑法学研究的层面划分问题》,载《法学研究》2001年第3期。
①参见张明楷:《刑法学》,法律出版社2003年版,第62页。
②参见冯亚东、胡东飞:《犯罪构成模型论》,载《法学研究》2004年第1期。
①参见冯亚东:《罪与刑的探索之道》,中国检察出版社2005年版,第276页。
②参见冯亚东:《罪与刑的探索之道》,中国检察出版社2005年版,第277页。
①参见高铭喧:《新编中国刑法学》,中国人民大学出版社1998版,第763页。
②参见赵秉志主编:《外国刑法各论》,中国政法大学出版社2006年版,第175页。
①张明楷:《刑法学》,法律出版社2003年版,第153页。
①参见赵秉志:《侵犯财产罪》,中国人民公安大学出版社2003年版,第48页。
②参见金子桐:《罪与罚一侵犯财产罪和妨害婚姻、家庭罪的理论与实践》,上海社会科学院出版社1987年版,第14页。
①张明楷:《刑法学》(下),法律出版社1997年版,第757页。
①参见1997年11月4日最高人民法院《关于审理盗窃案件具体运用法律若干问题的解释》。
②参见张明楷:《刑法学》(下),法律出版社1997年版,第760页。
③参见赵秉志:《侵犯财产罪》,中国人民公安大学出版社1999年版,第51页。
①参见张国轩:《抢劫罪的定罪与量刑》,人民法院出版社2001年版,第220页。
②参见赵秉志:《侵犯财产罪》,中国人民公安大学出版社1999年版,第71页。
①参见全国法院干部业余大学中国刑法课程教研组编:《中国刑法教学大纲》(试用本),人民法院出版社1992年版,第138页。
②参见王作富:《认定抢劫罪的几个问题》,载姜伟编:《刑事司法指南》(第1辑),法律出版社2000年版,第17页。
③参见高铭喧:《新编中国刑法学》(上册),中国人民大学出版社1998年版,第473页。
①冯亚东:《罪与刑的探索之道》,中国检察出版社2005年版,第283页。
②赵秉志:《侵犯财产罪研究》,中国法制出版社1998年版,第65页。
①参见张明楷:《刑法学》,法律出版社2003年版,第756页。
②参见高西江:《中华人民共和国刑法的修订与适用》,中国方正出版社1998年版,第597—598页。
①参见赵秉志:《侵犯财产罪》,中国人民公安大学出版社2003年版,第81—82页。
②高铭喧:《刑法学原理》,中国人民大学出版社1993年版,第294页。
③冯亚东、胡东飞:《犯罪既遂标准新论》,载《法学》2002年第9期。
①冯亚东、刘凤科:《论抢劫罪客体要件之意义》,载《华东政法学院学报》2003年第2期。
①参见肖智川:《论“以危险方法抢夺”行为的定罪》,载《中国刑事法杂志》2002年第4期。
①参见谢雁湖:《“飞车抢夺”应定抢劫罪》,载《中国刑事法杂志》2004年第3期,第52页。
②但未丽:《抢劫罪专题整理》,中国人民公安大学出版社2007年版,第310页。
①参见黄太云、腾炜:《中华人民共和国刑法释义与适用指南》,红旗出版社1997年版,第378页。
①参见张明楷:《简论“携带凶器”抢夺》,载《法商研究》2000年第4期。
①参见马克昌:《刑法学全书》,上海科学技术文献出版社1993年版,第345页。
2、高铭喧、马克昌主编:《刑法学》,高等教育出版社、北京大学出版社2000年版。
3、马克昌:《近代西方刑法学说史略》,中国检察出版社1996年版。
4、储槐植:《刑事一体化与关系刑法论》,北京大学出版社1997年版。
5、冯亚东:《理性主义与刑法模式》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版。
6、冯亚东:《罪与刑的探索之道》,中国检察出版社2005年版。
7、张明楷:《刑法学》(第二版),法律出版社2003年版。
8、张明楷:《刑法格言的展开》,法律出版社2003年版。
9、陈兴良:《刑法哲学》,中国政法大学出版社2000年版。
10、赵秉志主编:《刑法基础理论探索》,法律出版社2003年版。
11、李洁:《论罪刑法定的实现》,清华大学出版社2006年版。
12、邱兴隆、许章润著:《刑罚学》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版。
13、邱兴隆:《关于惩罚的哲学》,法律出版社2000年版。
14、魏东:《现代刑法的犯罪化根据》,中国民主法制出版社2004年版。
15、王晨:《刑事责任的一般理论》,武汉大学出版社1998年版。
1、冯亚东、刘凤科:《论抢劫罪客体要件之意义》,载《华东政法学院学报》2003年第2期。
2、冯亚东、胡东飞:《犯罪构成模型论》,载《法学研究》2004年第1期。
3、胡东飞:《形式的犯罪概念质疑》,载赵炳寿、向朝阳主编:《刑事法问题研究》,法律出版社2005年版。
4、陈兴良:《社会危害性理论》,载《法学研究》2000年第1期。
5、刘艳红:《我国与大陆法系犯罪论体系之比较研究》,载《中外法学》2004年第5期。
6、李希慧、童伟华:《犯罪客体不要说之检讨》,载《法商研究》2005年第3期。
7、童伟华:《犯罪客体论纲》,载《刑事法评论》(第15卷),陈兴良主编,中国政法大学出版社2004年版。
8、雪千里:《关于犯罪客体的几个问题》,载《中国刑事法杂志》2005年第6期。
9、周光权:《犯罪构成理论与价值评价的关系》,载《环球法律评论》2003年秋季号。
①参见朱晓斌:《抢劫罪中既遂与未遂的探讨》,载《法学》1981年复刊号。
②参见但未丽:《抢劫罪专题整理》,中国人民公安大学出版社2007年版,第168页。
③参见赵秉志:《抢劫中故意杀人的定罪问题》,载《法学研究》1987年第4期。
①参见肖开权:《也论抢劫中故意杀人的定罪问题》,载《法学研究》1988年第3期。
②参见高铭喧:《新编中国刑法学》(上册),中国人民大学出版社1998年版,第473页。
①参见谢彤:《我国刑法中抢劫罪的暴力是否包括故意杀人》,载《华侨大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)2003年第3期。
①高銘喧主编:《刑法学》,法律出版社1983年版,第106页。
①参见高铭喧、马克昌主编:《刑法学》,高等教育出版社、北京大学出版社2000年版,第55页。
②冯亚东:《罪与刑的探索之道》,中国检察出版社2005年版,第23页。
③童伟华:《犯罪客体研究》,武汉大学出版社2005年版,第52页。
④何秉松:《犯罪构成系统论》,中国法制出版社1995年版,第173页。
①何秉松主编:《刑法教科书》,中国法制出版社1997年版,第243页。
②参见张明楷:《法益初论》,中国政法大学出版社2003年版,第181页。
③高铭喧、马克昌主编:《刑法学》,高等教育出版社、北京大学出版社2000年版,第353页。
①参见何秉松主编:《刑法教科书》,中国法制出版社1997年版,第243页。
①张明楷:《法益初论》,中国政法大学出版社2003年版,第167页。
①冯亚东:《罪与刑的探索之道》,中国检察出版社2005年版,第274页。
①参见张明楷:《犯罪论原理》,武汉大学出版社1991年版,第134页。
②参见肖中华:《犯罪构成及其关系论》,中国人民大学出版社2000年版,第174页。
①肖中华:《犯罪构成及其关系论》,中国人民大学出版社2000年版,第174页。
②参见冯亚东:《罪与刑的探索之道》,中国检察出版社2005年版,第280页。
①参见冯亚东:《关于刑法学研究的层面划分问题》,载《法学研究》2001年第3期。
①参见张明楷:《刑法学》,法律出版社2003年版,第62页。
②参见冯亚东、胡东飞:《犯罪构成模型论》,载《法学研究》2004年第1期。
①参见冯亚东:《罪与刑的探索之道》,中国检察出版社2005年版,第276页。
②参见冯亚东:《罪与刑的探索之道》,中国检察出版社2005年版,第277页。
①参见高铭喧:《新编中国刑法学》,中国人民大学出版社1998版,第763页。
②参见赵秉志主编:《外国刑法各论》,中国政法大学出版社2006年版,第175页。
①张明楷:《刑法学》,法律出版社2003年版,第153页。
①参见赵秉志:《侵犯财产罪》,中国人民公安大学出版社2003年版,第48页。
②参见金子桐:《罪与罚一侵犯财产罪和妨害婚姻、家庭罪的理论与实践》,上海社会科学院出版社1987年版,第14页。
①张明楷:《刑法学》(下),法律出版社1997年版,第757页。
①参见1997年11月4日最高人民法院《关于审理盗窃案件具体运用法律若干问题的解释》。
②参见张明楷:《刑法学》(下),法律出版社1997年版,第760页。
③参见赵秉志:《侵犯财产罪》,中国人民公安大学出版社1999年版,第51页。
①参见张国轩:《抢劫罪的定罪与量刑》,人民法院出版社2001年版,第220页。
②参见赵秉志:《侵犯财产罪》,中国人民公安大学出版社1999年版,第71页。
①参见全国法院干部业余大学中国刑法课程教研组编:《中国刑法教学大纲》(试用本),人民法院出版社1992年版,第138页。
②参见王作富:《认定抢劫罪的几个问题》,载姜伟编:《刑事司法指南》(第1辑),法律出版社2000年版,第17页。
③参见高铭喧:《新编中国刑法学》(上册),中国人民大学出版社1998年版,第473页。
①冯亚东:《罪与刑的探索之道》,中国检察出版社2005年版,第283页。
②赵秉志:《侵犯财产罪研究》,中国法制出版社1998年版,第65页。
①参见张明楷:《刑法学》,法律出版社2003年版,第756页。
②参见高西江:《中华人民共和国刑法的修订与适用》,中国方正出版社1998年版,第597—598页。
①参见赵秉志:《侵犯财产罪》,中国人民公安大学出版社2003年版,第81—82页。
②高铭喧:《刑法学原理》,中国人民大学出版社1993年版,第294页。
③冯亚东、胡东飞:《犯罪既遂标准新论》,载《法学》2002年第9期。
①冯亚东、刘凤科:《论抢劫罪客体要件之意义》,载《华东政法学院学报》2003年第2期。
①参见肖智川:《论“以危险方法抢夺”行为的定罪》,载《中国刑事法杂志》2002年第4期。
①参见谢雁湖:《“飞车抢夺”应定抢劫罪》,载《中国刑事法杂志》2004年第3期,第52页。
②但未丽:《抢劫罪专题整理》,中国人民公安大学出版社2007年版,第310页。
①参见黄太云、腾炜:《中华人民共和国刑法释义与适用指南》,红旗出版社1997年版,第378页。
①参见张明楷:《简论“携带凶器”抢夺》,载《法商研究》2000年第4期。
①参见马克昌:《刑法学全书》,上海科学技术文献出版社1993年版,第345页。