本文選題：結(jié)果加重犯 + 共同犯罪　； 參考：《浙江大學(xué)》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(jìn)行了規(guī)定,但卻沒有明確"結(jié)果加重犯"的概念,對于結(jié)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(wù)中的困惑。本文正是試圖厘清結(jié)果加重犯的概念、特征與結(jié)構(gòu),并結(jié)合共同犯罪的本質(zhì),探討結(jié)果加重犯能否成立共同犯罪,以及相關(guān)行為人對加重結(jié)果應(yīng)否承擔(dān)刑事責(zé)任。本文正文共分為六章,共約三萬字。第一章:結(jié)果加重犯中共同犯罪問題概述。對結(jié)果加重犯的概念、特征以及結(jié)構(gòu)進(jìn)行闡述,并對共同犯罪的本質(zhì)進(jìn)行探討,提出結(jié)果加重犯中共同犯罪的根本問題是加重結(jié)果能否歸責(zé)于各行為人的問題。第二章:國內(nèi)外對結(jié)果加重犯中共同犯罪問題的認(rèn)識與處理。介紹英美法系與大陸法系對類似問題的認(rèn)識與處理,其主流觀點是要求共犯對加重結(jié)果主觀上有預(yù)見可能性或存在過失。介紹我國理論與實務(wù)界的兩種學(xué)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(wù)采取的"實行過限說"在根本上適用原理有誤。第五章:對結(jié)果加重犯中共同犯罪問題的認(rèn)定。個人認(rèn)為"過失"系罪責(zé)要素,對于成立共同犯罪不生影響,但對于加重結(jié)果承擔(dān)責(zé)任客觀上要求系共同行為創(chuàng)設(shè)的典型風(fēng)險的現(xiàn)實化,主觀上要求行為人對于加重結(jié)果能夠預(yù)見,并識別出共同行為創(chuàng)設(shè)的風(fēng)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(xué)位授予單位】：浙江大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D924

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 金澤剛;結(jié)果加重犯的結(jié)構(gòu)及其未遂形態(tài)問題[J];上海交通大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2001年02期

2 熊贊研;結(jié)果加重犯的構(gòu)成透析[J];中國刑事法雜志;2001年06期

3 任志中;結(jié)果加重犯未遂問題探析[J];杭州商學(xué)院學(xué)報;2002年04期

4 馮景旭;周江;;論結(jié)果加重犯[J];研究生法學(xué);2003年01期

5 彭衛(wèi)東;結(jié)果加重犯新探[J];武漢公安干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2005年02期

6 王文青;;結(jié)果加重犯[J];理論界;2005年12期

7 李建軍;王文青;姚遠(yuǎn);;結(jié)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(jié)果加重犯的解讀與誤讀[J];黑龍江教育學(xué)院學(xué)報;2006年03期

9 范連玉;夏聰玲;王志強(qiáng);;海峽兩岸結(jié)果加重犯之比較研究[J];商洛師范專科學(xué)校學(xué)報;2006年02期

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

相關(guān)會議論文 前1條

1 曾，

本文編號：2027157