【作者】 谢长江；

【导师】 陈忠林；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 刑法学， 2009， 硕士

【摘要】 本文探讨的主题,即共犯的处罚根据问题,在中国刑法学界基本上还是一块未开垦地“处女地”。在国外(主要是德国日本刑法学界)虽然论争了上百年,但仍然是缺漏频仍,笔者认为,国外各种学说中除了纯粹引起说在方法论上值得称到以外,其余的责任共犯论、不法共犯论、修正引起说、折中引起说都在方法论上步入了误区,这四种学说(除了纯粹引起说)都未从判断行为不法之标准的构成要件符合性上切入,抛弃了这个应当是唯一标准的方法,而仅仅从法益侵害上去寻找共犯处罚的根据,从责任共犯说中共犯制造了犯罪人到不法共犯说中共犯使正犯陷入反社会状态且破坏了社会和平而受到触犯,再到引起说中的修正引起说中正犯不法的范围决定共犯不法的范围和根据、折中引起说中共犯从属性地侵害构成要件所保护的法益等等都未在技术上加以落实并论证,也就是说即使在价值上能够论证,然而在技术上(即构成要件符合性的判断上)却未能落实,甚至都未曾想过共犯之行为怎么才能符合构成要件?试想:离开了犯罪构成而去论证共犯之行为是否应受到刑罚处罚,这是多么的荒诞可笑!所以这四种学说,在笔者看来都是不足为道的,永远都只是停留在价值上的论证,殊不可取。反观遭受修正引起说、折中引起说批判的纯粹引起说,在方法论上的正确性毋庸讳言,即阐明了共犯是否不法的判断应当从共犯之行为是否符合构成要件上加以判断,但是纯粹引起说仍然是在价值上论证共犯行为怎么符合构成要件,这本身与构成要件符合性的设定就是自相矛盾的,因为构成要件符合性成为判断行为是否违法的唯一标准这本身就是一个技术性的规定,这本身就是把“价值上的罪”转化为“现实中的罪”的一个技术手段,当然就不能再从价值上来论证为什么共犯行为符合构成要件了,不然在逻辑上就是自相矛盾的。而且更为重要的是纯粹引起说已经在方法上迈出一大步,但也未曾想到反思先前的行为理论是否经得住实践的考验?是否有必要重新建构我们的行为理论?如何建构我们的行为理论才能让共犯的行为符合构成要件,又不至于处罚过宽?这不能不说是一大遗憾!全新的控制行为理论为我们解决这个棘手问题提供了良方,此行为理论认为:人的行为就应当是主体控制或应当控制的客观条件作用于特定对象存在状态的过程。而刑法中的行为就是行为人依据刑法规定控制或者应当控制的客观条件作用于特定对象存在状态的过程。那么据此行为理论可以得出:共犯控制或者应当控制的客观条件中当然也应该包括他人的行为即正犯的行为,正犯之行为当然亦是共犯之行为的一部分,那么不难得出共犯之行为当然也是符合犯罪构成的,这在技术上的论证堪称完美。至此共犯的处罚根据的难题得以圆满解决。更多还原

【Abstract】 This article explores the subject,namely the foundation on complicity punishment under the question,which is basically still a piece of "virgin land" in Chinese criminal law scholars. Although the debate of this theory has been going on a hundred years in foreign countries (mainly criminal law scholars form Germany and Japan),gaps are still frequent,in my point of view,the existing law theories about the foundation on complicity punishment,apart from the purely provoking theory should be affirmed in the aspect of methodology,the rest of the liability accomplices theory,illegal accomplices theory,modified provoking theory,the compromised provoking theory has stepped into the wrong direction in terms of the methodology.The four theories(excluding the pure provoking theory) did not determine the behavior is whether legal or not from the theory of the model of tatbestand.If we abandoned this only benchmark,simply determined foundation on complicity punishment from the theory of infringement of legal interest,including narrow accomplice creates the crime in the liability accomplices theory,narrow accomplice make principal offenders involving in anti-social status and destroying the social peace in illegal accomplices theory,and then narrow accomplice is decided by principal offenders in modified provoking theory,narrow accomplice subordinately infringe legal interest in the compromised provoking theory.It is impossible for us making an true conclusion according to above these theories because of did not be demonstrated through effect method.In other word,even if they can get to an effect conclusion based on value,however,it did not be yet implemented based on technology (that is,the judge on the theory of the model of tatbestand),even they have not thought about how to meet the tatbestand the conduct of narrow accomplice? Just to imagine:it is absurd and ridiculous that we judge the conduct of narrow accomplice whether punished or not without the implementation of the tatbestand.In my opinion,these four theories were inadequate,just undesirably stay in the layer of the value argument.On the contrary,there is no doubt the correctness of method to purely provoking theory,that is,we judge the conduct of narrow accomplice whether legal or not based on tatbestand,but it is still demonstrated for purely provoking theory through Value which is inconsistent with tatbestand because we must rely on tatbestand when we judge the conduct whether legal or not.It means a technology that put "the crime in value" into a "real crime",so we demonstrate why the conduct of narrow accomplice is consistent with tatbestand not only based on value,or else it is self-contradictory in the logic.Importantly,it is quite significant for purely provoking theory the demonstrated method,however,it never think that previous the theory of the conduct whether stand the test of practice or not? Whether there is a need to re-construct our theory of conduct or not? How to construct our theories so as to not only enable the conduct of narrow accomplice is consistent with tatbestand but also punish of narrow accomplice through a reasonable method? It is a great pity!New control theory for us to provide a solution to solve the intractable problem,it goes: a person control or should have controlled the objective conditions and influent on process of existence of the specific object.It is the conduct of criminal law that people according to Criminal law control or should have controlled the objective conditions and influent on process of existence of the specific object,so we can draw:parts of the objective conditions that narrow accomplice control or should have controlled is made up the conduct of other people,in another way,the conduct of other people is the conduct of the principal offender, parts of narrow accomplice is made up the conduct of the principal offender.So it is not difficult to obtain that the conduct of narrow accomplice also meet tatbestand.It is quite perfect in the method to demonstrate how narrow accomplice meet tatbestand.It is to be satisfactorily resolved for the problem of foundation on complicity punishment.更多还原