【作者】 徐大勇；

【导师】 黎煜昌；

【作者基本信息】 河南大学 ， 刑法学， 2003， 硕士

【摘要】 犯罪构成是犯罪论的核心和灵魂，其设立的目的主要是对罪刑法定主义的具体化，同时也是为立法和司法的具体操作而设立的一种规格和模型。无论是大陆法系还是社会主义国家犯罪构成体系，都是一直将其作为理论研究的重中之重。大陆法系国家的构成体系和社会主义国家的构成体系差异很大，这种差异又主要体现在犯罪构成的结构上以及内容之中。对犯罪构成理论的研究和发展，两个体系均有着各自的特色。比较而言，我国的犯罪构成体系结构存在着诸多的问题，这些问题的存在使得现有的构成体系难以与立法和司法的思维规律和具体操作要求相符合，这样就在一定程度上制约着我国刑法理论的发展和立法、司法的合理操作。笔者通过对大陆法系、英美法系、社会主义国家犯罪构成理论形成过程的梳理，比较三大构成体系的结构模式和各自的具体内容，同时总结和借鉴我国国内现有的犯罪构成理论的研究成果，在区分立法上和司法上所要解决的问题的不同，以及立法上和司法上所设立构成的不同依据和两者各自的思维规律的差别的基础上，提出建立一种立法上犯罪构成与司法上犯罪构成双层次的犯罪构成模式。立法上的犯罪构成中应包括客体、主体、构成要件三个方面的内容，这三个内容是依客体—主体—构成要件形式呈递进式的逻辑结构，其体系的设立是依据立法上将某类行为纳入刑法之中并对之设立罪名的思维角度进行的。笔者认为，客体应当作为立法上犯罪构成之中的必要要件而存在，它在立法上犯罪构成中的地位是与立法上需要对行为加以政治性的评价的要求分不开的。体现客体这种社会关系的具体内容是客体之对象，而客体之对象与行为之对象是两个既有联系又有区别的概念。主体是作为立法上犯罪构成体系的第二个层次的内容而存在，主体应该作为立法上犯罪构成体系的内容，主体的具体内容包括一般主体和特殊主体两个部分，并在主体之中对主体的资格和主体的身份做了严格的区分。在立法<WP=5>上的犯罪构成体系中，构成要件是作为第三个层次的内容而存在。在立法者对行为的社会危害性和行为的实施者做出严格的限定之后，就需要对行为的主客观方面做出评价的设立。在构成要件中，笔者依行为样态的不同，将构成要件分立为基本的构成要件和修正的构成要件。基本的构成要件是对行为基本样态的设立，通过对行为的必要要件和选择要件的设立对行为的主客观方面进行评价。此外笔者将排除犯罪性行为的内容纳入构成要件之中，使之作为一个与成罪内容相对立的内容而存在，充分发挥立法犯罪构成的功能，笔者认为这也是对我国传统的构成体系将这一内容排除于体系之外问题的合理解决。在修正的构成要件之中，笔者将行为的特殊样态作为其主要的内容，即未完成形态的构成与共同犯罪的构成共同构成修正的构成要件的内容。区别于立法上的构成体系，司法上的构成包含两个方面的内容，即主体—构成要件。这是基于司法上在对某一具体的行为是否成立犯罪的衡量时，并不需要对行为进行政治性评价的要求而设立的。因此笔者将客体这一体现政治性评价的内容排除出司法上的构成之外。笔者认为，司法上对某一具体行为是否成立犯罪、成立何种犯罪的评价，只需要对行为的主客观方面依据司法上的构成进行规范的、法条的评价即可。因此将司法上的构成体系设立为主体、构成要件两个部分的内容，而将客体排除于司法上的构成体系之外的体系结构符合司法上的思维规律和具体操作程序的。最后，笔者认为，立法上的构成体系与司法上的构成体系是既有联系又有区别的两个体系结构。立法上的构成是司法上构成的来源、前提和设立的依据，立法上的构成体系对司法的构成体系的具体运用起指导作用。而司法上的构成体系起着促进立法上犯罪构成体系结构和功能完善的作用。两者的区别主要体现在思考问题的角度上、各自所体现出的功能上等方面的差别。理论上所要研究的是立法上犯罪构成体系和司法上犯罪构成体系。理论既要<WP=6>对立法上的犯罪构成的结构、内容等方面做出研究，以更好地指导立法的完善。同时，理论也要对司法上的犯罪构成的具体运用做出理论上的指导，进而指导司法实践的具体进行。简言之，即理论指导立法和司法实践，促进实践的合理化，立法和司法实践反过来也推动着理论研究的深入和完善，这就是笔者所认为的立法上的犯罪构成和司法上的犯罪构成与理论之间的关系。更多还原

【Abstract】 Constitutive elements of crime are core and souls of the crime theory，its mainly purpose is specifying to legal doctrine of crime and punishment, at the same time, for legislating and administration of justice concrete operation set up a kind of specification and model. Regardless of law department in the continent or the system of constitutive elements of crime of the socialist state, regard the most important things of theoretical research as it all. The composition system of law department’s country of continent and composition system of the socialist state are widely different, this kind of difference is embodied on the structure of constitutive elements of crime and contents. In research and development the theory of constitutive elements of crime, they have each characteristic individually. In the speaking of comparatively，a great deal of questions exist in the system structure of constitutive elements of crime in our country, the existences of question make existing composition disagree with legislation and the thinking laws of administration of justice system，restricting the development of the criminal law theory of our country and rational operation of the legislation and administration of justice to a certain extent so. Author comb constitutive elements of crime in socialist state theory and American and Great Britain departments forming process, compare three kinds of structure modes of forming the system and each concrete content, summarize and draw lessons from our country’s domestic and existing achievement in research of constitutive elements of crime theories, different from the problems that are solved on administration of justice in distinguishing legislating and administration of justice, setting up different basis and each thinking form at the foundations of differences of law，propose and set up a pair of levels modes including<WP=8>constitutive elements of crime on legislation and the one on the administration of justice.In constitutive elements of crime on legislating, it include the object, subject and composition. These three pieces of content are to depend on the object - subject - composition logic structure formed of going forward one by one type. Its set up to be according to legislative general bring a kind of behaviors into criminal law and set up charge that angle go on thinking to it. Author think, object should exist as the essential composition of constitutive elements of crimes on legislating, the position in its constitutive elements of crime in legislating can not be separated from that need the requisition on appraisal with political behavior on legislating. The concrete content of embodying this kind of social relationships of the object is the target of object, the target of the object and target of the behavior are connections as well as concept distinguished. The subject is to exist as the second level in the system of constitutive elements of crime, the subject should be as legislating content of the system of constitutive elements of crime, the concrete content of the subject includes general subject and special subject , and it has done strict differentiation to the qualification of the subject and identity of the subject in the subject .In the system of constitutive elements of crime in legislating composition is to exist as the content of the third level .After the person who legislates make strict limited to social harmfulness and implementer of the behaviors，the ones made and appraised the subjective and objective respect to the behavior. In composition, the author depends on the difference of the style attitude of behavior, form the basic composition and revised composition. The basic composition is setting up to basic style attitude of behavior, to set up essential composition and selective one to appraise subjective and objective respect of the behavior. In addition the content of<WP=9>justification should be included in the composition, to make the content of justification the one of the composition, give full play to the functions of legislative更多还原