【作者】 黄丽；

【导师】 莫洪宪；

【作者基本信息】 武汉大学 ， 刑法学， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 本文在比较了德国、日本和我国台湾地区刑法对想象竞合犯规定的基础上，从我国罪数基本理论出发，集中论述了想象竞合犯的法律性质、构造及处罚，并对想象竞合犯与共同犯罪发生竞合时的处理问题进行了相应的探讨。 本文分为四章。第一章主要探讨想象竞合犯的理论前提，主要研究了“一个行为”的标准和类型，强调认定一个行为时必须从刑法的具体规定出发。另外，这一章还介绍了我国关于一罪的分类体系，并对实质一罪、法定一罪和处断一罪的概念作了界定。 第二章主要探讨想象竞合犯的法律性质和构造。本章根据我国罪数的基本理论，认为想象竞合犯应当是实质的一罪对于其构造，本文提出应当承认同种类的想象竞合犯。 第三章主要探讨想象竞合犯的处罚。在详细介绍并评析了“数罪并罚说”、“从一重处断说”、“具体分析说”基础上，本章阐述了“从一重重处”原则的合理性，并对该处罚原则的具体适用作了详细地分析。 第四张主要探讨想象竞合犯与共同犯罪中共同正犯、教唆犯和帮助犯分别竞合时的处理问题。更多还原

【Abstract】 On the basis of comparative research on the stipulations concerning imaginative jointer of offenses in Germany, Japan and Taiwan province, the article focuses on the legal nature, constitution and punishment of the imaginative jointer of offenses and advances some suggestions on the settlement of the coincidence between joint offenses and imaginative jointer of offenses.This article is divided into 4 chapters .The first chapter, as the theoretical preconditions of imaginative jointer of offenses, is concerned about the standards and types of "one action" which should be justified in accordance with the stipulations in the criminal law .and the author makes an introduction to the classification system about "one crime", putting forward the definition of one crime in nature, in stipulation and in sentence.The second chapter focuses on the legal nature and constitution of imaginative jointer of offenses. The author insists that imaginative jointer of offenses should be considered as one type of "one crime in nature" according to the theory of quantity crime in our country, and imaginative jointer of offenses of one kind should be justified.The third chapter focuses on the punishment of imaginative jointer of offenses. After the comments and research on the principles of "jointer of punishment for plural crimes" "particular research and judgment of the crimes" "punishments for the serious crime", the author discusses the reasonable basis and the applications of the principle of "more punishments for serious crime".The fourth chapter discusses the relationship between imaginative jointer of offenses and joint offenses. In this chapter, the author insists that joint offenses should be divided into 3 types: joint commissioner, abettor, accessory, and discusses the settlement about the coincidence between imaginative jointer of offenses and joint offenses.更多还原