超法规违法阻却事由的体系建构

【作者】 陈庆安；

【导师】 马松建；

【作者基本信息】 郑州大学 ， 刑法学， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 在所有的法律制裁中，刑罚是最为严厉的制裁。刑罚的介入将直接导致犯罪人的财产、自由、甚至是生命的剥夺。刑罚使用得当，就会很好的起到保护人民、打击犯罪的功能；刑罚如果使用不当，就会严重侵犯公民人权，导致司法资源的浪费，影响法律的威信，不利于人民法治理念的培养。因此，不管是我国及原东欧诸国的耦合式四要件的犯罪构成理论、以德国和日本为代表的递进式三要件的犯罪构成理论、还是英美法系中的双层犯罪构成模式，都对犯罪的成立规定了严格的条件限制，以合理界定犯罪的范围，有效的限制刑罚的使用。 在以德日为代表的大陆法系的犯罪理论中，行为要具备构成要件该当性、违法性、有责性三要件，犯罪始告成立，其中，违法性处于居中贯通的地位，具备构成要件该当性的行为，必需进一步评价为违法，始有讨论有责性的必要，否则，刑法的评价即告结束。对违法性的评价需要从形式违法性和实质违法性两方面进行，形式违法性是指行为违反法秩序或法规范；对实质违法性的理解则因人而异，根据社会相当性的理论，只有行为超越“社会生活中，由历史形成的社会伦理秩序(即社会相当性)时”才是违法。实质违法性和我国刑法理论中的社会危害性颇相类似，都是某一行为危害社会、破坏现行刑法秩序的核心所在。 超法规违法阻却事由是实质违法性的必然结果，行为具备构成要件该当性和形式的违法性之后，并不必然就具备实质的违法性，为避免对不具有实质违法性的行为进行处罚，大陆法系各国刑法都明文规定了违法阻却事由，以限制犯罪的成立范围。但是，时代发展到今天，已经没有多少人再迷信实定法的完美了，无论立法者多么富有远见，知识多么渊博，都难以避免法律规定与社会实际的脱节，都无法避免法律漏洞的出现。加之，社会新生事物层出不穷，社会观念变动不居，上述种种因素对法律的冲击，都会导致法律的滞后，因此，在实定法之外，承认超法规的违法阻却事由、以弥补实定法之不足就势在必行。而且，从罪刑法定主义的立场出发，有利于被告人的超法规违法阻却事由之理论，在刑法理论中也有承认的可能性。 超法规违法阻却事由的最终法律效果将行为不成立犯罪并因而阻却刑罚的使用，因此，超法规违法阻却事由就有和阻却构成要件该当事由、阻却责任事由、客观处罚条件、阻却刑罚事由、以及可罚之违法性区别的必要，这种区别将会加深对超法规违法阻却事由的理解。 由于各国的刑法对违法阻却事由的规定各不相同，因此，在正当化行为中，那些应当是法规上违法阻却事由，那些应当是超法规违法阻却事由，难以取得一致结论。查各国刑法理论中的超法规违法阻却事由共有:得被害人承诺的行为、推定的承诺、自损行为、自救行为、治疗行为、义务冲突行为、正当社会活动行为、可受容许的危险、安乐死、劳动争议行为、学校对学生的惩戒权、超法规紧急避难等十二种。以我国的法律体系为基础，对上述事由进行逐一分析，最后认为，得被害人承诺之行为、可受容许的危险、依照法令的行为、业务上正当行为、安乐死、超法规紧急避难、自救行为和义务冲突等八种正当化事由应当成为我国刑法理论中的超法规违法阻却事由。 超法规违法阻却事由和法规上违法阻却事由应当具有共同的上位概念，这一上位概念就是一元论的社会相当性说。以此为基础，借鉴日本学者团腾重光的正当化事由体系，可以将我国刑法理论中的超法规违法阻却事由分为两大类。第一类是超法规常态违法阻却事由，计有:得被害人承诺之行为、可受容许的危险、依照法令的行为、业务上正当行为、安乐死等五种;第二类是超法规紧急行为类型，计有:超法规紧急避难、自救行为和义务冲突等三种。第一类的共同要件是:目的的正当性、手段相当性和法益均衡性，而第二类在必需具备第一类的要件外，尚需具备行为的补充性。更多还原

【Abstract】 Among all the legal sanctions, criminal punishment is the most severe one. The criminals can be deprived of their possessions, liberties even life. The goal of protecting the people and punishing criminals will be achieved if the system of criminal punishment is properly dealt with. Vise versa, failing to deal with it may offend the human rights and waste the resource of law, even worse it may affect the authority of the law. So every country has prescribed firmly what is ’Must’ in a crime in order to judge whether a certain action belongs to a crime or not despite of the fact that different countries adopt different doctrines of constitution of a crime.In the continental law system (adopted in Germany and Japan etc), constitution of a crime consists of three components: conformity of important constructive conditions, illegality and accountability . Illegality is the most important and necessary one. Any illegal case must be confirmed as illegal other wise any case must be separated from the illegal case. There are two ways to confirm a crime: Formal illegality means a certain action breaks the law, while substantive illegality means a certain action breaks the law in nature (e.g. brings harm to the society), however this action is not in the list of illegal action according to the law. In such case, different people have different understanding. According to the doctrine of social equality, only the action, which ’surpasses’ the society, could be confirmed as illegal.The appearance of supra-law ground for elimination of misfeasance is the natural results of substantive illegality. When an action has been judged as having conformity of important constructive conditions and accountability. This action does not necessarily have the character of illegality. To avoid such an action be confirmed as illegal, all the countries which adopt continental law system have prescribed constitution of supra-law ground for elimination of misfeasance. But few people are still superstitious about the perfection of a certain law now. In other words, the lawmakers cannot avoid leaks when making the law. In addition, new things come faster than the change of the belief upon the society of the people. According todoctrine of a legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime, supra-law ground for elimination of misfeasance is possible to be admitted in the theory of criminal law.Using of supra-law ground for elimination of misfeasance leads to avoid using legal punishment under some certain conditions. It is necessary to make a distinction between ground for elimination of punishment and ground for elimination of crime punishment. This distinction is helpful for understanding the supra-law ground for elimination of misfeasance.It is hard to reach a conclusion upon which factors could be considered as the ground for elimination of crime punishment owing to the fact that different countries have different social tolerance upon the same action. In all, there are twelve acts in the list of supra-law ground for elimination of misfeasance in the world. They are act of receivean an answer, the conduct of a constructive consent, act of self-destructing, act of helping oneself, measure of treatment, conflict of obligation, proper social action, permissive danger, euthanasia, act of labor conflict, disciplinary authority of teacher and supra-law ground for act of rescue. Among them eight acts should be regarded as supra-law ground for elimination of misfeasance in China. Supra-law ground for elimination of misfeasance and law ground for elimination of misfeasance are derived from the doctrine of social equality. According to the Japanese scholar tuantengchongguang’s theory, these eight acts can be divided into two parts: normal supra-law ground for elimination of misfeasance and urgent supra-law ground for elimination of misfeasance. The former are proper in purpose, equal in measures and in legal interest, the later are complementary in action too.更多还原