【作者】 朱兴；

【导师】 朱建华；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 刑法学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 刑事归责是建立在新康德主义价值论哲学基础上的一种实质的构成要件理论，它以康德主义的认识论为基础，强调在构成要件符合性判断中区分事实判断和价值评价。事实判断是价值评价的基础，价值评价是对事实判断的价值补充。刑事归责是一种新的构成要件诠释方式。它通过对行为人－行为－结果之间在刑法规范上归属关系的诠释，说明符合构成要件的行为所具有的不法本质。刑事归责与犯罪论体系中主客观要件的实质解释具体密切的联系，将刑事归责理论运用于犯罪主客观要件的研究，可以突显出犯罪主客观要件所具有的作用和意义。本文在改造我国犯罪构成理论的基础上，从行为人-行为-结果之间的规范结构入手，将刑事归责作为说理分析工具运用于犯罪主客观要件的诠释，揭示出犯罪构成客观要件和主观要件所具有的独立意义和价值，实现犯罪构成要件内容的实质化。本文分为总论和分论两部分，总论部分研究刑事归责的理论基础和基本内涵，分论部分研究作为刑事归责两大组成部分的客观归责和主观归责。全文共七章。第一章刑事归责的理论源流，主要研究刑事归责理论的哲学伦理学渊源和刑事归责理论产生发展的过程及影响。刑事归责理论发端于德国哲学伦理学上的归责思想。德国哲学家普芬道夫、康德、黑格尔的归责思想对刑法上的归责学说都产生过重大影响。刑事归责理论可以追溯到德国普通法时期。普通法时期的刑法学已经将归责区分为事实归责和法律归责，但未区分出主观归责与客观归责。古典犯罪论体系产生后，归责趋向于主观，并且演变为归责能力这一下位概念。卡尔·拉伦茨将黑格尔的意志归责予以客观化，提出了客观归责的概念。霍尼希将拉伦茨的客观归责思想引入到刑法中来，并将其定位在构成要件阶层。恩吉施的两次相当性判断和威尔策尔的社会相当性理论都对刑事归责理论的发展作出了重要贡献。德国现代刑事归责具有不同的理论和学说。其中，克劳斯·罗克辛的刑事归责学说影响最大。现在，德国刑事归责理论已对奥地利、西班牙、葡萄牙、日本、韩国、我国台湾地区等大陆法系国家和地区产生了广泛的影响。第二章刑事归责理论比较研究，通过对意志归责与规范归责、不法归责与责任归责、行为归责与结果归责、客观归责与主观归责这几对范畴的比较，从不同的侧面揭示刑事归责的基本内涵。按归责根据的不同，刑事归责可以分为意志归责和规范归责。意志归责将行为人的主观意志或者客观化的意志作为归责的根据；规范归责将法规范作为归责的根据。按照归责的后果是与行为的社会损害性有关，还是与行为的可谴责性有关，刑事归责可以区分为不法归责和责任归责。不法归责强调归责与行为不法的联系，归责关系的成立确证了行为的不法本质。责任归责强调归责与行为人责任的联系，归责关系的成立确证的是行为人的责任。按照归责是与行为的构成要件符合性有关，还是与结果的构成要件符合性有关，刑事归责可以区分为行为归责与结果归责。行为归责与行为的构成要件符合性具有密切联系，行为在客观上可归责于行为人，说明行为是构成要件行为。结果归责与结果的构成要件符合性具有密切联系。实际发生的结果可归责于构成要件行为，说明该结果就是构成要件结果。按照诠释对象的不同，刑事归责可以分为客观归责与主观归责。客观归责是客观构成要件的一种诠释方式，主观归责是主观构成要件的一种诠释方式。但是，客观归责要素并不局限于客观要素，客观归责判断需要考虑主观要素；主观归责要素也不局限于主观要素，主观归责判断也要考虑客观要素。第三章刑事归责的基本内涵，主要研究刑事归责的规范基础、刑事归责与犯罪构成要件的联系以及刑事归责的概念和基本特征等。刑事归责的规范基础是评价规范与决定规范、行为规范与结果规范的统一。违法与责任的区分是刑事归责的存在基础。我国犯罪构成理论建立在整体考察和综合判断的思维模式基础之上，犯罪构成各要件不具有独立的意义和作用，构成要件符合性判断具有形式判断和经验判断的特征。在这种整体考察和判断的思维模式之下，刑事归责理论难以为我国犯罪构成理论所吸收和借鉴。在我国犯罪构成理论中引入刑事归责的基本条件是打破整体考察和判断的思维模式，在犯罪构成要件中引入位阶关系，区分不法与责任，并将犯罪客体从犯罪构成中剔除，为犯罪构成其他要件的实质解释扫清障碍。刑事归责是行为人-行为-结果之间在刑法规范上的归属关系。刑事归责是实质的犯罪构成要件理论。它与行为人－行为－结果之间的规范联系作为自己的基本范畴。从内容上说，刑事归责是客观归责与主观归责、行为归责与结果归责的统一。刑事归责关系是行为人－行为－结果三者之间的规范联系。这种规范联系以三者之间的事实联系——因果关系为前提。刑事归责关系分为客观归责关系和主观归责关系。客观归责关系的联结点是风险，主观归责关系的联结点是行为支配和敌视法益的意念。第四章客观归责，主要研究因果关系与客观归责的定位、因果关系的实质和判断标准、客观归责的基本判断规则。因果关系和客观归责都不是独立的构成要件，而是构成要件行为与构成要件结果之间的内在联系。因果关系是事实判断，客观归责是价值判断。因果关系是客观归责的前提和基础，客观归责是因果关系的价值补充。因果关系的判断应当遵循符合法则的条件理论。客观归责通过制造风险、实现风险、构成要件效力范围三大判断规则，实质解释了构成要件行为和构成要件结果。构成要件行为是给构成要件结果制造禁止风险的行为；构成要件结果是构成要件行为所制造禁止风险的实现。构成要件的效力范围从反面进一步检验了构成要件行为和构成要件结果。第五章客观归责与我国犯罪客观要件，主要研究客观归责与我国犯罪客观要件的融合。我国犯罪客观要件的研究应当区别归因判断与归责判断，归因判断先于归责判断。我国刑法上因果关系的判断缺乏标准，区分必然因果关系和偶然因果关系并不能满足刑法上价值判断的需求，在事实上区分原因与条件也不能为刑法上的价值评价提供一个适当的事实基础。本文认为，因果关系是一种事实判断，应当遵循符合法则的条件理论。原因与结果之间只有符合自然科学上的法则才具有因果关系，因果关系在自然科学上无法加以说明时，是不可能通过条件公式加以解决的。在因果关系判断之后，还存在一个客观归责判断。我国犯罪客观要件在本质上体现了行为对刑法所保护社会关系的客观危害。这一规范本质决定了危害行为与危害结果应当是客观归责要素。作为客观归责要素的危害行为包含有危害结果发生的禁止风险；危害结果是危害行为所制造禁止风险的实现。刑法规范的保护目的从反面检验危害行为与危害结果。第六章主观归责，主要研究故意犯罪的主观归责问题。故意是行为不法的重要组成部分。是主观的归责要素。故意并不是一种单纯的心理状态，而是主观与客观要素的类型。故意中既具有事实要素，也包含有价值成分，在故意的认定上要区分事实判断和价值评价。故意的价值评价体现于主观归责。主观归责的规范根据是存在行为支配和敌视法益的意念。两者共同制约着故意中的价值判断。结果的故意归责是主观归责的重要组成部分。在行为人所认识的结果与实际发生的结果发生因果偏离时，实际结果是否能够归责于主观故意，决定着行为人是否对结果承担故意责任。在结果的故意归责上，与法定符合说和具体符合说相比，行为计划实现理论所得出的结论更具有合理性。第七章主观归责与我国犯罪故意理论，主要研究主观归责与我国犯罪故意的融合。传统的犯罪故意理论强调故意的心理性特征，本文则在着重阐述了故意的规范性特征。我国犯罪故意的规范内容是主观恶性。这种主观恶性在犯罪故意认识因素中的体现是社会危害性认识；在意志因素中的体现是敌视刑法所保护社会关系的态度。传统犯罪故意理论将故意中的“希望”或“放任”单纯理解为一种心理态度，但是，本文认为，犯罪故意中的“希望”和“放任”不能仅仅理解为心理态度，更应当理解为一种行为态度。这种行为态度是从行为的主客观事实中反映出来的行为人所奉行的行为准则，也可以说是对行为主客观事实的一种整体评价。犯罪故意中“希望”和“放任”的判断，不仅要考虑行为人主观的心理事实，而且也要考虑客观的行为事实。更多还原

【Abstract】 Criminal Imputation，which is based on the neo-Kantian philosophy, is a theory of realConstitutive Elements. It is based on Kant’s epistemology, emphasizing the distinctionbetween fact judgment and value evaluation in judgment of conformity of the constituentelements. Fact judgment is the Premise Conditions of value evaluation and value evaluation isa supplement to fact judgment. Criminal Imputation is a new interpretation of ConstitutiveElements. It shows criminal illegal nature of the Behavior which accord with ConstitutiveElements by interpretation of imputation relationship between actor–behavior-results on theCriminal Legal Norm. Criminal Imputation have close contacted with the interpretation of thesubjective and objective requirements in the Criminal Theory System. By Using theImputation theory in study of the subjective and objective requirements, the criminalsubjective and objective Constitutive Elements will have its independent role and significance.On the basis of transformation of our theory about constitution of crime, this paper useCriminal Imputation as a tool of analysis applied to the interpretation of the criminalsubjective and objective Constitutive Elements, Revealing the independent value and meaningof the Constitutive Elements. This paper is divided into two parts, pandect and sub-pandect.The pandect has discussed theoretical Basis and the Basic Connotation of the CriminalImputation. The sub-pandect has discussed the objective imputation and subjective imputation.This paper has seven Chapters.First chapter the origin and development of the Criminal Imputation, has discussed thephilosophic and ethical origin and the birth, development and effects of the criminalimputation. The criminal imputation originated from imputation thought of philosophy andEthics in Germany. German philosopher Pufendorf, Kant, Hegel’s thought on the imputationhad a significant impact on the criminal imputation. Imputation theory can be traced back tothe German common law period. During the common law period, criminal imputation hasbeen divided into the fact imputation and the law imputation, but criminal jurist in that timedid not distinguish between subjective imputation and objective imputation. After theappearance of classical the Criminal Theory System, imputation inclined to the Subjective andimputation turn into imputation ability. Karl Larenz interpreted Hegel’will imputation asobjective concept and put forward the concept of objective imputation. The objectiveimputation is introduced into Criminal Law and located in the class of Constitutive Elements by Honig. The two judgments on correspondence theory of Engisch and the socialcorrespondence theory of Welzel has made important contributions on the criminalimputation. German modern criminal imputation has different theories and doctrine. Amongthem, Claus·Roxin’s criminal imputation doctrine has biggest influence. German criminalimputation theory produces an extensive influence on continental law system country andregion such as Austria, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc.The second chapter the comparative study of criminal imputation, through comparisonbetween will imputation and normative imputation, lawless imputation and liabilityimputation, behavior imputation and results imputation, objective imputation and subjectiveimputation, reveal the basic connotation of criminal imputation. According to the differentimputation criteria, the criminal imputation can be divided into will imputation and normativethe imputation. Will imputation depend upon the subjective wills or objective will. Normativeimputation use legal norms as imputation Standard. Under the different meaning of Criminalimputation, it can be divided into illegal imputation and liability imputation. Illegalimputation emphasizes relationship between imputation and illegal acts, establishment of theimputation relationship can corroborate the illegal nature of acts. Liability imputationemphasizes relationship between imputation and actor’s Liability, establishment of theimputation relationship can corroborate actor’s Liability. Criminal imputation can be dividedinto behavior imputation and results imputation. Behavior imputation has closed cooperationwith the conformance of behavior. Behavior can be imputed to actor at the objective, meanthat behavior accord with the Constitutive Elements. Results imputation have close contactwith the conformance of results. Actual results can be imputed to the behavior, indicating thatthe result accord with the Constitutive Elements. Under different interpretative object,criminal imputation can be divided into objective imputation and subjective imputation. Theobjective imputation is a kind of interpretation of objective constitutive elements; thesubjective imputation is a kind of interpretation of subjective constitutive elements. However,the objective imputation is not limited to the objective elements, subjective factors should beconsidered when judging of objective imputation. The subjective imputation is not limited tothe subjective elements, objective factors should be considered when judging of subjectiveimputation.The third chapter the basic meaning of criminal imputation, has discussed the normativebasis of criminal imputation, the relationship between criminal imputation and constitutive elements, the concept and basic characteristics of criminal imputation. The normative basis ofcriminal imputation is the uniform of evaluation norm and determination norm, BehaviorNorms and results norm. The distinction between illegal and liability is the existencefoundation of criminal imputation. Our constitution of crime theory is established on the basisof holistic and comprehensive thinking mode. The elements of constitution of crime do nothave an independent significance and role. The judgment of constitutive elements hascharacteristics of formal judgment and experience judgment. On the overall mode of thinking,it is difficult that the criminal imputation theory be absorbed and used for reference.Introducing relationship of position and distinguishing between illegal and liability is theprerequisite that criminal imputation theory can be introduced into our constitution of crime.Criminal imputation is the ownership relation between actor-behavior-the result on thecriminal norm. Criminal imputation is substantial crime constitution theory. This normrelationship is based on causality relationship between actor-behavior-the result. Criminalimputation relations are divided into objective imputation relations and subjective imputationrelationship. The attaching point of objective imputation is risk; the attaching point ofsubjective imputation is behavior domination and the will of being hostile to Legal Interest.The forth chapter objective imputation, has discussed the position of causality andobjective imputation, the essence and judgment standard of causality, basic judge rules ofobjective imputation. Causality and objective imputation are not independent constitutiveelements, but the internal Relations between behavior and results. Causality is fact judgment,objective imputation is value judgment. Causality is the premise and foundation of objectiveimputation. Objective imputation is the value supplement of causal relationship. Causalityjudgment shall abide by the condition theory according with rule. By making risk, realizingrisk, effect scope of constitutive elements, three judgment rules, behavior and results havebeen explained. Behavior according with constitutive elements is a banned risk behaviorwhich giving rise to results according with constitutive elements. The result according withconstitutive elements is the realization of banned risk which is made by behavior. Effectscope of constitutive elements has proved the behavior and results according with constitutiveelements from opposite side.The fifth chapter objective imputation and the objective element in china, has discussedthe integration of objective imputation and the objective element. Our objective elements ofcrime should be judged on the basis of distinguishing between attribution and imputation. The judgment of attribution precede the judgment of imputation. China’s criminal law theory islack of standards to judge the causal relationship and distinguishing between necessarycausality and accidental causality can not meet the demands of the value judgments. In fact,distinguishing between causes and conditions, can not provide a proper basis for the valuejudgments of criminal law. The condition theory according with rule should be adopted at thejudgment of causality. Objective element of crime, in essence, reflects criminal offenceobjectively hazarding social relations protected by criminal law. This essence of normdetermines the behavior and results according with constitutive elements should be theobjective imputation factor. As an objective imputation factor, the behavior contains theinhibitory risk against the results occurring. The harmful result is reality of the risk that ismade by harmful behavior. Conservation purposes of Criminal Law have examined thebehavior and results according with constitutive elements from opposite side.The sixth chapter subjective imputation, has discussed the problem of the subjectiveimputation in intentional crime. Intention is an important part of illegal act and is subjectiveimputation elements. Intention is not a simple psychological state, but the type of subjectiveand objective factors. In fact, intention not only has fact elements, also contains valuablecomponents. We should discriminate fact judgment and value evaluation at the judgment ofintention. Intention’s value evaluation reflected in subjective imputation. The will foundationof subjective imputation is behavior domination; the norm foundation is the will of beinghostile to Legal Interest. They together determine the value judgment of Intention. Intentionalimputation of results in intentional crime is an important component of the subjectiveimputation. Whether actual results can imputed to intention decided whether actor bear theresponsibility of intentional crime. Compared with theory of statutory conformation andtheory of concrete conformation, theory of Behavior plan is more reasonable at processing thecognition errors of facts.The seventh chapter subjective imputation and our criminal intention theory, hasdiscussed the integration of subjective imputation and our criminal intention theory. Thevalue content of our criminal intention is subjective evil. This subjective evil is embodied inthe consciousness of social harmfulness at the aspects of cognition factor and in the attitude ofbeing hostile to social relationship protected by the criminal law. The "knowledge" in thecriminal intention shall include the understanding of risk relationship between harm behaviorand harmful results. The "hope" and "indifference" in the criminal intention simply cannot understand for mental attitude, and should be regarded as a kind of behavior attitude. Thisbehavior attitude is manifested from the subjective and objective factors of behavior. Not onlysubjective psychological facts, but also objective behavior facts should be considered at thejudgment of "hope" and "indulge". Intentional imputation of the results can provide a newidea at processing the cognition errors of facts.更多还原