【作者】 许青松；

【导师】 赵国强；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 刑法学， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 间接正犯在德日刑法中是一个很重要的理论。随着社会的发展,层出不穷的间接正犯不断冲击我国传统的刑法理论。由于间接正犯系统理论的缺失,使得需要刑法理论予以指导的司法实践经常处于迷茫之中。因此,在立足于传统刑法理论基础并遵守罪行法定原则的前提下,建立系统的间接正犯理论无疑是我国刑事理论与司法实践中的一项艰巨的任务。本文从剖析间接正犯概念入手,对间接正犯这种特殊犯罪形态中的诸多疑难问题展开较为深入细致的研究,对每一疑难问题在分析论证基础之上尽量确立一个明确的结论,以期为立法提供借鉴,为司法提供指导,为间接正犯理论进一步的深入研究抛砖引玉。本文除导言外,共分为七章。论文的第一部分为导言,对论文选题背景、研究意义进行了阐述,介绍了国内外关于间接正犯的研究现状,对论文的研究方法、创新之处与不足进行了总结。论文第二部分为第一章,主要对间接正犯的有关概况进行了阐述说明。在介绍分析正犯的学说与间接正犯代表性定义的基础上,对本文中的正犯采限制正犯说,界定了本文中间接正犯的概念,概括出间接正犯实现犯罪的间接性、非共犯性、承担刑事责任的直接性和独立性以及支配性四个显著特征,并进一步对间接正犯的性质的各种学说进行了评析。笔者对间接正犯所下的定义以及将间接正犯确定为一种特殊犯罪形态的观点,为以后各章研究间接正犯相关问题提供了前提基础。本文第三部分由第二、三、四、五章组成,主要对间接正犯的具体问题进行了专门的研究。笔者在论文的第二章中,从被利用的人与行为入手,分利用无责任能力者、利用他人无特定犯罪故意之行为和利用他人有故意之行为三种情形,对可能成立间接正犯的情形作了最大限度的探讨分析与论证。笔者认为利用无责任能力者应该构成间接正犯,而不应构成教唆犯;利用他人无特定犯罪故意之行为中的利用他人既无故意又无过失之行为、利用他人无故意但有过失之行为以及利用他人对特定犯罪无故意但对其他犯罪有故意之行为三种情形,均可构成间接正犯;而利用他人故意之行为应当具体情形具体分析,其中利用他人有故意但无特定身份之行为应当成立间接正犯,而利用他人有故意但无特定目的之行为,如果特定目的是犯罪的构成要件,则利用者不构成教唆犯而构成间接正犯,如果特定目的不是犯罪的构成要件而只是加重责任要件,则利用者不构成间接正犯。在论文的第三章中,笔者对可能限制间接正犯成立的亲手犯与身份犯进行了分析。笔者在肯定亲手犯概念的基础上,赞同不亲自实施刑法分则罪状所要求的实施行为者不构成间接正犯。身份犯中的身份仅指定罪身份,笔者在对有身份者教唆、帮助无身份者实施纯正身份犯,以及无身份者教唆、帮助有身份但无责任者实施纯正身份犯,利用者是否构成间接正犯的各种学说进行阐述并进行评析后,认为身份犯主要是对刑法规定义务之违反,有身份者教唆、帮助无身份者实施纯正身份犯,只是利用者实施犯罪的方式的改变,其对刑法规定义务之违反并未改变,故利用者构成间接正犯;而无身份者教唆、帮助有身份但无责任者实施纯正身份犯,无身份的利用者由于身份的欠缺,故其不具有刑法对该身份所要求的特定义务,因此,无身份者无法构成该身份犯,当然不构成该身份犯的间接正犯。论文的第四章对间接正犯的实行行为进行了研究,其中间接正犯的着手是本章的重点。立足于对刑法中五种行为学说的介绍与评析,笔者对刑法中的行为进行了界定,概括出意思支配、身体动静与社会意义是刑法中行为三个必备要素。刑法中的实行行为,在形式上必须符合各种具体构成要件,在实质上具有各种具体的构成要件中所保护的法益的现实危险性。尽管关于实行行为的着手理论学说概括起来有客观说、主观说和折中说,但三种实行行为着手理论学说均有明显缺陷。笔者认为,由于犯罪是行为人主观意思与客观行为的危险结合,因此认定实行行为的着手应该从行为人主观意思与客观的具体危险两方面来进行,并且独立分开进行。而间接正犯是由利用者的利用行为与被利用者的结果惹起行为复合而成立的犯罪,从利用行为还是被利用行为不同角度,导致间接正犯实行行为的着手学说有利用行为说(主观说)、被利用行为说(客观说)及个别化说(折中说)。笔者立足于认定实行行为的着手应该从行为人主观意思与客观的具体危险两方面来进行的学术观点,对被利用行为说(客观说)合理性予以了论证。基于相似的理由,确立并论证了被利用行为说才是间接正犯实行行为终了的合理学说。论文第五章对间接正犯中的认识错误进行了探讨。国外刑法理论对于刑法中的事实认识错误如何处理的学说,主要有具体符合说、抽象符合说与法定符合说,法定符合说得到大多数学者和日本司法判例的认可。间接正犯的错误包括利用者的认识错误、被利用者的认识错误以及不知情的被利用者中途知情三种情形。间接正犯中利用者的认识错误是指利用者误认被利用者的工具的性质,大陆法系刑法学者对如何处理利用者认识错误的观点总结为主观说、客观说与折中说,笔者以刑法间接正犯、教唆犯概念本身含义为基础,对客观说合理性进行了论证。间接正犯中被利用者的认识错误包括实施过限、实施不足与实施异化,笔者认为,对被利用者的实施过限部分,由于利用者缺乏故意,不承担间接正犯的故意责任,但不排除承担过失责任的可能。被利用者的实施不足,如果仅是行为内容或侵害结果实施不足,应以间接正犯未遂论处,如果是行为内容与侵害结果均不足,则对侵害结果的不足按间接正犯未遂论处,对行为不足的未实施的行为,按照间接正犯的预备论处。被利用者的实施异化分为非重合性异化与重合性异化,非重合性异化中,利用者对期望之罪构成间接正犯预备,对异化后之罪,原则上不承担刑事责任,但不排除特殊情况下承担过失犯的刑事责任。重合性异化包括趋重异化与趋轻异化,趋重异化中,利用者对轻行为承担间接正犯的预备责任,如果对重行为有过失,承担重行为的过失责任;而对趋轻异化,利用者应以重罪的间接正犯未遂论处。本文讨论的不知情的被利用者中途知情的情形是指:被利用者在开始实施被利用的行为后知情,在能够停止被利用行为、摆脱利用者的支配的情况下,又基于自己犯罪意图,继续实施完剩余的行为。对此如何处理,大陆法系刑法理论有间接正犯说、间接正犯未遂说、教唆犯说。笔者认为,如果知情前被利用者已经实施了主要被利用行为,对利用者按间接正犯未遂来处理,如果知情后被利用者实施了主要被利用行为,对利用者按教唆犯来处理,如果被利用者知情前后所实施的被利用行为相当,在间接正犯未遂与教唆犯中择一重处罚即可。论文第六章对间接正犯与共犯的区别进行了比较分析。本章中的共犯指狭义共犯,即教唆犯和帮助犯,区别正犯与共犯的学说有主观说、客观说和犯罪支配说。笔者认为,由于犯罪支配说依据行为人主客观上是否处于支配来区分是正犯还是共犯,而犯罪是行为人主客观的综合体现,故犯罪支配说是合理的学说。在此基础上,总结出间接正犯与教唆犯、片面共犯犯罪构成上的区别主要表现为犯罪主体、犯罪主观方面、犯罪客观方面不同,非犯罪构成上的区别主要表现在犯罪停止形态、罪名、承担刑事责任的差异上。论文第七章研究了间接正犯的立法与司法状况,介绍了大陆法系的德国、日本、韩国有关间接正犯的立法、司法以及意大利关于间接正犯的立法,阐述了英美法系刑法中与间接正犯相似的无罪代理人制度,并总结出两者的区别与联系。以发展的眼观从法史的角度对中国大陆刑法与间接正犯的关系进行了梳理,提出中国大陆刑法应引入间接正犯概念,并对中国大陆间接正犯立法的必要性进行了论证,进而对中国大陆刑法间接正犯的立法模式提出了建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 The indirect principal is a very important theory in the German and Japanese criminal law. With the development of society, more and more indirect principals are impacting the theory of our traditional criminal law. Because of the short of the indirect principal theory system, the justice practice which needs the instruction of criminal law theory always in the sea .So at the premise of keeping a foothold in traditional criminal law theory and obeying the principal of a legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime, there is no doubt that it is a difficult and important assignment to set up a systemic theory of indirect principal in the area of our criminal theory and justice practice. This article is drafted to beginning with the analyse of the concept of indirect principal to develop a deeper study of the difficulties and doubts from the special form of indirect principal, trying to establish a clear theory of each problem , to draw lessons for the lawmaking ,and supply derection to the justice . Except the introduction, this text is devided into seven chapters.The first part is the introduction, the author describes the background for the topic, introduces the status for researches in relation to domestic and overseas indirect principal and describes the research methods, creations and research values related to this paper in the introduction hereunder.The second part is chapter one, an overview of the indirect principal is described to illustrate. In the doctrine of the principal, the definition of indirect principal representation of committing described based on the analysis, the principal committing to adopt restrictions that define the indirect principal, in this article the concept of indirect principal to generalize the indirect achievement of the crime, non-accomplice nature, undertake the direct and independent criminal responsibility , as well as four distinct characteristics of dominance, and further indirect principal, the nature of the various doctrines of the assessment. The author gives the definition under the indirect principal, as well as indirectly committing the crime, identified as a special form of study in subsequent chapters of this paper provides an indirect principal based on the premise.The third part consists of chapter two, chapter three, chapter four and chapter five, special research on concrete question about indirect principal is done in this part.In chapter two, starting from the person and behavior being used, to sub-use people who has no obligation, the people who have non-intentional acts and the people who has intentional acts three cases, the author analyses and demonstrates the possible establishment maximum of an indirect principal. Demonstrated the people who use no obligation people t should constitute an indirect principal not an instigator; The use of other non-intentional acts of the three cases, namely, the use of others is neither intentional nor negligent acts, the use of others, but no intentional fault of the behavior and the use of another person without a specific intent crime, but for other crimes are intentional acts, the user may constitute indirect principal; The use of intentional acts of others, including two kinds of cases, should be a concrete analysis of specific situations, in which there is deliberate use of another person without the specific identity of the behavior should be the establishment of an indirect principal, while the use of another person without the specific purpose of intentional acts, if the specific purpose of the constituent elements of crime, then the user does not constitute a form of instigator but an indirect principal , if a particular purpose is not a crime constituent element but merely increases the responsibility element, then the user does not constitute an indirect principal .Chapter three is about the research for the restrictions on the establishment of an indirect principal, including personal crime and the status crime. On the base of the concept of personal crime, the author agrees with the implementation of the provisions of criminal law required by the implementation of the acts does not constitute an indirect principal. The status of this chapter only refers to convicted status , those who have the status instigate and help to implement pure status crime, those who have no status instigate and help the people in status but are not responsible for the implementation of pure status crime, after has elaborated the doctrines of indirect principal , the author considers that the status is mainly committed the breach of its obligations under the criminal law, those who has the status abet and help to implement a pure status crime , only means a change in the way of committing crime, not a change about the breach of obligations under the Criminal Code , so the author thinks they are all indirect principals; those who has no status to abet and help the people who has the status but not guilty the implement the pure status crime, for the lack of the status, who has no the specific obligations required, so those who has no the status can not constitute the status and constitute an indirect principal of the status crime.Chapter four is about the research on the act of perpetrating of the indirect principal behavior, in which indirect principal commencing is the focus of this chapter. Based on the doctrine of criminal law in the five kinds of behavior description and analysis of the behavior of the Penal Code, the author defines and summarized the meaning dominance, physical and social significance of dynamic and static behavior of three essential elements of criminal law. The act of perpetrating in criminal law must comply with specific conditions that constitute in the form and a variety of specific elements in the composition of the legal interests protected by the reality of risk in essence. Despite the act of perpetrating on the set theories summarized as an objective theory, the subjective theory and the compromise theory, but the three theories have obvious shortcomings. Since crime is a combination of subjective meaning and objective dangerous of behavior, commencing should be identified with the subjective meaning and the specific objective risk, at the same time, they are independent separately. The indirect principal is a crime by the available behavior and the behavior being used, based on different angles, it results in the use of behavior theory (subjective theory), behavior being used theory (objective theory) and individual theory (compromise theory). Based on the view that the commencing of the act of perpetrating should be proceed with the subjective meaning and the specific objective risks ,the author demonstrates the theory of behavior being used (objective theory) is rational theory. Based on similar reasons, the author demonstrates the theory of behavior being used is rational theory for indirect principal ending.Chapter five is about the recognizing errors of indirect principal. How to deal with the recognizing errors, there are the concrete coincidence theory, the abstractive coincidence theory and the statutory coincidence in foreign criminal law, the statutory coincidence has been accepted by most scholars and judicial precedents in Japan. The recognizing errors of indirect principal include the recognizing errors for user, recognizing errors misunderstanding for those whose behavior be used and those who begins to know the reality midway. The recognizing error for user refers to the user mistakes the nature of the people who be used as a tool, how to deal with the recognizing error, there are three theories, i.e., subjective theory, objective theory and compromise theory in civil law system, according to the concept of abettor indirect principal, the author has demonstrated the objective theory to be rational. The recognizing errors for those whose behavior be used includes excrescent execution, deficient execution and different execution, for the excrescent execution, the user doesn’t undertake any intent responsibility of indirect principal because of the lack of intention, but maybe undertake negligence liability. If the deficient execution is only the content of the act or the violation result, the user should be the unaccomplished offender of indirect principal, if the content of the act and the result are both deficient, the user is preparatory crime of indirect principal for the former, the user is the unaccomplished offender of indirect principal for the latter. The different execution is divided into non-overlapping alienation and overlapping alienation, in non-overlapping alienation, the user is preparatory crime of indirect principal for the expected crime, and is innocent to the crime of alienation as a principle, but negligence liability does not be ruled out. Overlapping alienation includes the aggravation trend alienation and the lighten alienation, for the former, the user should take the liability for the lighten behavior as a preparatory crime of indirect principal, if has negligence for the aggravation behavior, should bear negligence liability; for the latter, the user should be punished as a felony unaccomplished offender of indirect principal. In this paper those who begins to know the reality midway refers to those who knows the reality after he has begun his behavior and he can cease to be used, based on his own criminal intent continues to finish his behavior. How to deal with this situation, there are three doctrines in civil law system, i.e., indirect principal theory, the unaccomplished offender of indirect principal theory and the abettor theory. In my opinion, if those who are used have implemented the main act, the user should be an unaccomplished offender of indirect principal, after having known this, those who are used continue to do so, the user should be an abettor, if those who are used have finish the behavior as much as the undone behavior, the more severer punishment can be selected from the unaccomplished offender of indirect principal and the abettor.Chapter six is about the difference between the indirect principal and the accomplice. Accomplice in this article refers to the accomplice in the narrow sense, i.e., the abettor and the accessory; the doctrines distinguishing between the principal and the accomplice include subjective theory, objective theory and the crime control theory. The crime control theory distinguish between the principal and the accomplice based on the doer’s objective and subjective, because the crime is a comprehensive reflection of the objective and subjective, the crime control is a reasonable doctrine. The difference between the indirect principal ,the abettor and the one-side accomplice in crime constitute is mainly on the subject of crime, subjective elements, objective circumstances of a crime, The difference is also reflected in the stop form of crime, the accusation, criminal liability.Chapter seven is about the present situation of the indirect principal about the legislative and judicial. The present legislative and judicial situations in Germany, Japan, Korea, and Italy are introduced, the innocent agent system similar to the indirect principal in the Anglo-American legal systems is described, the differences and similarities are summarized at the same time. The relation between the indirect principal and the criminal law in Chinese mainland is sorted with a developing insight from the law history angle, the author suggests the concept of indirect principal should be introduced to china, demonstrates the necessity of indirect principal in legislation, and provides the mode Indirect on the indirect principal in Chinese mainland.更多还原