日本刑法教唆犯理论研究

【作者】 谢佳君；

【导师】 李邦友；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 刑法学， 2007， 硕士

【摘要】 共犯理论作为各国刑法学术界争议颇多的理论之一，被各国刑法学者视为刑法学理论中永恒的主题，作为共犯理论中心课题之一的教唆犯更是各国学者关注和研究的焦点，我国刑法理论界也不例外。由于我国刑法第29条对教唆犯采用了广义上的且比较模糊的规定，使得我国刑法中的教唆犯既不同于英美法系理论中的教唆犯又有别于大陆法系的教唆犯，从而在我国学术界中产生了对教唆犯的属性之争、构成要件之争、形态之争等诸多方面的激烈争论。笔者认为，巧妙择取英美法系、特别是大陆法系之优的日本刑法中的教唆犯理论对我国的教唆犯研究有着颇为重要的借鉴意义。于是笔者对日本刑法中的教唆犯理论进行较为系统、全面地介绍，以便“师夷之长技”来完善我国刑法教唆犯理论研究中的不足之处。本文分为四个部分，总计约36000字：第一部分：日本刑法教唆犯的理论概要。概括介绍了日本近现代刑法的发展背景以及立法沿革，从日本刑法的渊源出发，探讨了理论界以及司法判例对教唆犯的定义及其理解。理论界的通说观点认为：所谓教唆犯是指唆使他人使之产生犯罪决意，并使之基于此决意而实行犯罪者。该通说定义本身就是在否定了“基于过失的教唆”以及“对过失犯的教唆”(否定说)的基础上而得出的，因此也遭到了肯定“基于过失的教唆”以及“对过失犯的教唆”观点(肯定说)的学者的质疑。持肯定说的学者则将教唆犯定义为：唆使没有犯罪意思的他人实行特定的“犯罪”即符合构成要件且具有违法性的行为的，是教唆犯。而司法判例认为：“使他人产生犯罪决意并使其实行了犯意的”即构成教唆犯。第二部分：日本刑法教唆犯本体论。由于客观主义刑法理论与主观主义刑法理论所主张的犯罪共同说与行为共同说分别从不同的角度来理解共犯，使得对狭义共犯之一的教唆犯的成立范围有着不同的见解，从而对教唆犯的性质之争也成为共犯从属性说与共犯独立性说之争。西方大陆法系国家大致将教唆犯的成立要件归结为：教唆故意，行为人必须实施了教唆行为，被教唆者实行犯罪等三方面。而在我国刑法学界以及我国台湾地区刑法学界中就此问题也存有较大的分歧，台湾地区有二要件说、三要件说、五要件说等，在我国大陆地区有二要件说、三要件说、四要件说之争。日本刑法学界的通说观点认为教唆犯的成立要件其主要包含两个要件，即：主观和客观方面(包括教唆行为以及被教唆人的实行)的要件。就教唆行为的类型而言，通说观点否定了存有基于过失的教唆以及对过失犯的教唆，也否定了基于不作为的教唆行为，而对不作为犯的教唆行为则统一持肯定态度。由于目前各国刑法理论几乎都肯定了片面帮助犯的存在，那么大多数学者运用同样的理论来肯定同是狭义共犯的教唆犯也存在片面教唆。另外，本文对间接教唆犯、再间接教唆犯·连锁教唆犯等教唆犯类型、教唆犯的认识错误以及教唆犯的罪数形态问题进行了详细论述。第三部分：日本刑法教唆犯与共同正犯、帮助犯、间接正犯的界定。由于几种犯罪形式均有“第三者”的参与且在多数场合中有相互竞合的情形，因此在认定上容易混淆。笔者根据行为人在犯罪中的分工以及所介入的“第三者”在整个过程中的作用，对其相互之间的区别与联系进行了探讨。第四部分：日本刑法教唆犯的处罚。关于教唆犯的处罚根据问题，本文主要通过对责任共犯说、违法共犯说、惹起说之间的对比认为，共犯的不法是基于其本身侵害法益所形成的固有要素与由正犯行为的不法性所引出的从属性要素而构成的，换句话说，从属性法益侵害(惹起说中的折中惹起说)是共犯处罚的理论根据。另外，本文详细对比介绍了日本现行刑法以及我国刑法对教唆犯的处罚原则。更多还原

【Abstract】 Currently in our legal circle there occurs a heated discussion oninstigation, which centers on its attributes, components and forms. Asthe 29th Article of Chinese Constitution defines instigation vaguely,which makes instigation in Chinese Criminal Law differs from that inCommon Law and in Continent Law. This results in a debate over thenature, components and forms of instigation in Chinese legal circle. Inview of this situation, the author maintains that the introduction of theJapanese Instigation Theory is greatly conducive to Chinese scholars’research in this regard.The first part of this paper is a brief introduction to the JapaneseInstigation Theory. The widely-held view in the theoretical field ofJapanese Criminal law denies "accidental instigation" and "instigationunder criminal negligence". But the scholars who advocate theaffirmative theory define instigation as a crime committed by a personwithout any criminal motive but at another person’s instigation, namely,the action which is illegal and carries the components of a crime.According to judicial precedents, any action which motivates anotherperson to commit a crime and carries out his criminal plan constitutesinstigation.The second part is an ontological analysis of instigation in JapaneseCriminal Law. Since the co-crime principle in the objective criminaltheory and the co-behavior principle in the subjective theory approachesaccessory crime from different perspectives, scholars have differentunderstandings as to the area covered by instigation, a kind of accessorycrime in its narrow sense, thus changing the debate over the nature ofinstigation into a debate between accessory attribute principle andaccessory independence principle. The wide-held view in JapaneseCriminal is that two major elements constitute instigation: the subjectiveelement and the objective element.The third part is on the distinctions between instigation and joint principal offense, accessory’s crime and indirect principal offense. As allthe above-mentioned four crimes contain a third party and they overlapin most cases, it is very hard to distinguish one from another. Thereforethe author analyzes their similarities and dissimilarities on the basis ofthe labor division of the offenders and the role played by the third partyinvolved in the whole process of crime.The fourth part is on the penalty against instigation in JapaneseCriminal Law. As regards the yardsticks of penalty against instigation,the author firstly makes a contrastive analysis of the principle of jointprincipal offense, and the co-crime principle .and then concludes that theunlawfulness of the accessories consists of the inherent factors formedby their own violation of law and the subordinate factors brought aboutby the principals’ irregularities. In addition, this paper makes a detailedcontrastive analysis of the penalty principles against instigation inJapanese Criminal Law and Chinese Criminal Law.更多还原