【作者】 谭堃；

【导师】 李洁；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 刑法学， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 过失共同正犯是刑法理论中共犯论与过失犯论复杂交错的一个问题。承认过失共同正犯的存在，有利于解决数个过失行为共同导致一个结果的发生，但是难以判明各个过失行为与结果之间的因果关系的情况下，结果归责的问题。在过失共同正犯问题上存在着肯定说与否定说的对立。两种学说之间的主要对立点在于：第一，过失犯应当采取统一的正犯概念还是采取限制的正犯概念，从而决定过失共同正犯是否具有成立的必要性。第二，过失共同正犯是否存在意思联络，进而影响到过失共同正犯是否有成立可能性的问题。第三，过失共同正犯的共同性内容是什么的问题。结合过失犯理论，过失共同正犯在构造上具有正犯性、共同性以及因果性的要素。就正犯性来说，在过失犯的正犯概念问题上，过失犯采取统一的正犯概念是德国刑法理论中的通说。否定过失共同正犯的同时犯解消说以统一的正犯概念为前提，否定过失共同正犯有成立必要性的见解极为有力。但是，过失犯统一的正犯概念之下难以解决过失犯中的一系列基本问题，存在难以克服的缺陷。如果认为过失犯也是违反刑法中的行为规范的行为，则在违反行为规范的样态上，就存在着正犯与共犯的差别，过失犯就应当采取限制的正犯概念。进而过失犯的正犯性在于对犯罪实现的因果经过存在支配可能性。而没有这种支配可能性的过失共犯是不可罚的。基于过失犯的限制的正犯概念，则涉及过失共同正犯的事例就难以按照统一的正犯概念而成立过失同时犯，过失共同正犯有成立的必要性。就共同性的问题来说，过失共同正犯是否以意思联络为必要是其探讨的核心议题。共同正犯并不是因为产生了不同于单独犯的特殊危险而受到处罚，而是产生了与单独犯相同的结果，只不过在导致结果的方式上与单独犯不同，即是以共同行为惹起结果而具有共同性，所以需要采用特殊的“一部行为全部责任”原理进行归责。理论上存在的诸如共同意思主体说、因果共犯论以及机能的行为支配说，都是故意共同正犯的共同性的学说，因而难以适用于过失共同正犯。应当就故意犯和过失犯不同的行为构造来重构机能的行为支配说，为过失共同正犯的结果归责提供根据。如果认为共同正犯的本质特征体现在以共同行为惹起结果的方式上，则在共同惹起结果的过程中各行为人的行为相互补充、相互促进而对犯罪的实现产生了机能的行为支配，就是共同正犯“一部行为全部责任”的实质根据。只是，故意犯中，由于故意是一般的主观违法性要素，故意犯的成立以行为人对结果发生的认识、意欲为必要，因此，故意共同正犯的成立以意思联络为必要条件。在具有意思联络的情况下，各行为人才能具有相互补充、相互促进的共同关系。而在过失犯中，不存在对结果的认识、意欲，本身就不具有故意共同正犯意义上的意思联络。过失犯不具有一般的主观违法性要素，因此，过失共同正犯的成立不以意思联络为必要条件。但是，存在于作为过失犯本质的注意义务的违反中的决定相互补充、相互促进的共同关系形成的要素，仍然是过失共同正犯成立的必要条件。就过失共同正犯结果归责的因果性问题来说，如果在客观归责理论之下对过失犯的构成要件该当性和违法性进行判断，则过失共同正犯就以数人共同制造了不被允许的危险，且该危险在结果中得以实现为成立条件。过失共同正犯的结果归责在制造不被允许的危险、实现不被允许的危险以及构成要件的保护范围三大原理之下进行具体的判断，在这一点上与过失单独正犯的客观归责判断没有区别。所不同的是过失共同正犯在制造不被允许的危险上具有共同性，即是由数人共同制造了不被允许的危险。过失共同正犯的共同性在于数行为人的行为相互补充、相互促进，共同导致了结果的发生。而这种共同性的存在又是以数行为人之间存在相互监视义务为前提的。正是由于这种共同性的存在，过失共同正犯得以与过失同时犯相区别。由此，在过失共同正犯问题上形成了诸多新的观点。首先，明确了过失犯的正犯概念，就过失犯中故意正犯背后的过失参与以及过失参与他人自杀行为等具体问题的妥当解决提供了新的思路。同时明确了过失共同正犯的正犯性，为过失共同正犯的成立提供了基础。其次，摆脱了一直困扰过失共同正犯理论的共同性中意思联络存在与否的问题。由于故意犯与过失犯之间构造上的根本区别，在共同正犯的成立上就不能要求具有相同的成立条件。过失共同正犯的成立不要求具有意思联络。再次，在过失犯的结果归责的因果性判断中引入客观归责理论，使得过失共同正犯的构造向着较共同注意义务共同违反说更为精致化、体系化的方向发展。我国过失共同正犯的理论与实务都是以《刑法》明确否定了过失共同正犯的成立为前提的。在此前提下，既不利于实践问题的解决，也不利于过失共同正犯理论自身的发展，因此有重新审视的必要。通过言语行为理论可以发现《刑法》第25条第2款的规范构造，其既是行为规范也是制裁规范。作为行为规范，该条所禁止的是惹起法益侵害结果的过失共同犯罪行为。而作为制裁规范即是要对违反行为规范的行为作出评价。因此，法官在依照该制裁规范裁判案件时，是以过失共同犯罪行为为评价对象的。在具体的定罪量刑之前，需要确定是否成立过失共同犯罪，进而将结果归责于各行为人，这就为过失共同正犯的解释论展开提供了规范前提。更多还原

【Abstract】 Negligent joint principal offender is an interlocking issue connected by thetheory of accomplice and the theory of negligent offender in the theory of criminallaw.To admit the existence of negligent joint principal offender, helps to solve anumber of joint negligence leading to the occurrence of a result,But it is difficult todistinguish the causal relationship between each negligent behavior and the results ofthe case and the problem of imputation.There are two different kinds of assertions,including affirmative theory and negative theory for the issue of negligent jointprincipal offender.Main opposition point between the two theories is,a.negligentoffender should adopt whether uniform principal offender concept or limitedprincipal offender concept to determine whether negligent joint principal offenderhas the necessity of establishment;b.Negligence joint principal offender whetherexists meaning contact or not, and then it will affect the possibility of negligent jointprincipal offender’s establishment whether exists or not;c.What’s the content ofcommonality of negligent joint principal offender.Combining with the theory ofnegligent crime, negligent joint principal offender possesses the nature of principaloffender,intercommunity and causal factor on its sructure.In the case of principaloffender,on the question of principal offender concept of negligentoffender,negligent offender adopting uniform principal offender concept is thegeneral theory in the criminal law theory in Germany.Theory of simultaneousoffender dismission which denies negligent joint principal offender on the premise ofuniform principal offender concept,whose opinion of denying the necessity ofestablishment of negligent joint principal offender is very powerful.But, negligentoffender under the uniform principal offender concept is difficult to solve a series ofbasic questions of the negligent offender, there are insurmountable defects.If it is considered negligent offender is also a violation behavior of the norms of criminallaw, in the forms of violating code of conduct,there exists the difference betweenprincipal offender and accomplice,negligent offender should adopt the limitedprincipal offender concept. And then the principal offender characteristic ofnegligent offender lies in the dominance possibility existed in the course of causeand effect to the crime’s implementation.While it is not punishable to the negligentaccomplice without this domination possibility.Based on the concept of the limitedprincipal offender of negligent offender, the cases involved in negligent jointprincipal offender is hard to be affirmed as negligent simultaneous offenderaccording to the uniform principal offender concept.As a respond,the establishmentof negligent joint principal offender is necessary.In the case of the issue of intercommunity,whether negligent joint principaloffender regards meaning contact as its necessity is to explore the core issues ofitHowever,joint principal offender deserves a special imputation principle of”all theresponsibilities for parts of behaviors” because it produces the same consequenceyet a different manner leading to this consequence—joint conducts causeconsequence which poessessing intercommunity—as to a separate criminal insteadof producing special danger different from a separate criminal as its imputation basis.There are several theories such as theory of common meaning subject,theory ofcausal accomplice and theory of functional behavior control,those are all theories ofintercommunity,and they are difficultly applicable to negligent joint principaloffender.We should reconstruct the theory of functional behavior control accordingto the different behavior structures between intentional offender and negligentoffender to provide imputation basis for the consequence of negligent joint principaloffender.If we consider that the essence of joint principal offender is reflected by theway of joint behaviors provoking the consequence,and then each actor’s behaviormutually promote and supply to produce functional behavior control for therealization of the crime in the procedure of provoking jointly the consequence,whichis the essential basis of”all the responsibilities for parts of behaviors” for joint principal offender. Further,about intentional offender,due to intent is generic factor ofsubjective illegality,the establishment of intentional offender needs actor’s cognitionand intention as its criteria.Based on above, meaning contact is the requirement ofintentional joint principal offender’s establishment.Only under the meaning contacts,actors share the mutually promoting and supplying relationship.While,aboutnegligent offender with no cognition and intention for the consequence doesn’t havemeaning contact itself at all.Thus,negligent offender has no generic factor ofsubjective illegality,and meaning contact is not requirement of negligent jointprincipal offender’s establishment.Still, a crucial factor of effecting mutuallypromoting and supplying relationship’s formation which existed in the essence ofnegligent offender—violating duty of care—is the requirement of negligent jointprincipal offender’s establishment.In the case of the causality issue of negligent joint principal offender ‘simputation for its consequence,if judge the conformity and illegality of constitutiverequirements to negligent offender under the objective imputation theory,then theestablishment of negligent joint principal offender will come true with the conditionthat several people jointly create the risk is not allowed and the risk achieves for theconsequence.The imputation for its consequence of negligent joint principal offenderunder the specific judgment of three principles namely manufacturing the risk is notallowed,implementing the risk allowed and the extent of protection of theconstitutive requirements is no difference with the objective imputation judgment ofnegligent independent principal offender.The difference is negligent joint principaloffender has intercommunity in manufacturing the risk is not allowed,which is therisk is not allowed is created jointly by several people.The intercommunity ofnegligent joint principal offender lies in mutually promoting and supplyingbehaviors of actors,which jointly leads to the consequence of crime.And theexistence of this intercommunity is count on the premise of mutual monitoringobligation between the actors.Just because of this intercommunity,negligent jointprincipal offender is able to be distinguished from negligent simultaneous offender. Thus,on the issue of negligent joint principal offender has created many newviews.First of all, the principal offender concept of negligent offender isaffirmed,which provides a new train of thought to the the solution of participationsof punishable negligence behind intentional principal offender issue andparticipation others’ committed suicide negligently issue,etc.At the same time it hasbeen clear about the nature of principal offender of negligent joint principaloffender,and it provides a basis for the establishment of the negligent joint principaloffender.Secondly, it gets rid of the perplexed problem whether meaning contactexists in the theory of negligent joint principal offender.Due to the fundamentaldifference between intentional offender and negligent offender on structure,it can’tbe required they have the same establishment condition for the joint principaloffender.The establishment of negligent joint principal offender doesn’t needmeaning contact as a criterion.Thirdly,in the judgment of causality of negligent jointprincipal offender’s imputation for its consequence introducing the objectiveimputation theory is to make the establishment conditions of negligence jointprincipal offender develop in the direction more exquisite and systematic than thetheory of mutual violation with mutual duty of care.No matter the theory or the practice of negligent joint principal offender in ourcountry premises Criminal Law’s definite denial on the establishment of negligentjoint principal offender.It is adverse,under this precondition, not only for the solutionof practical problems,but also for the development of theory of negligent jointprincipal offender itself,which,therefore,is essential to be payed attention torenewedly. The specification structure of article25item2in Criminal Law can befound through the theory of verbal behavior which explains this specification isbehavior specification as well as sanctions specification.As behaviorspecification,this item is aimed at prohibiting the conduct of negligent joint crimecausing infringement results to legal interests.While as sanctions specification,itsobjective is to evaluate the conduct violating the behavior specification.Inconsequence,a judge regards the conduct of negligent joint crime as an evaluation object when he tries cases following this sanctions specification.It is a requirementof confirming whether a negligent joint crime is established before specificconviction and sentencing,so then we can attribute the results to each actor based onabove condition,which provides a specification premise for the theory ofinterpretation of negligent joint principal offender to spread.更多还原