【作者】 赵丹；

【导师】 徐岱；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 刑法学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 故意伤害罪是典型的侵犯人身权利的自然犯罪，历史久远，是司法实务发案率最高的罪名之一，存在着诸多适用疑难问题。对该罪名的理论研究有待进一步系统化，对其在司法实践的适用有待进一步深入研究。本文致力于对故意伤害罪的立法现状进行全方位评析，以理论研究为根据、以司法实践为基础，对故意伤害罪司法适用中的多发、疑难问题进行研究。除引言及结语外，全文内容共分为四章。第一章是故意伤害罪司法适用概述。回顾了我国故意伤害罪的立法沿革，对现行故意伤害罪的立法类型予以归纳，客观分析其立法缺失及在司法实践适用中的总体问题。我国立法的鲜明特征是违法多元论，刑事违法与一般违法在行为类型上具有交叉或重合，对罪的规定的立法形式采取定罪与定量相结合。伤害罪与一般伤害行为，分别适用刑罚与治安罚或民事罚。故意伤害罪由刑法第234条与转化适用故意伤害罪的其他个罪条款及司法解释并行规定，由于法条规定过于概括，着重于对伤害结果的区分，伤害行为缺乏类型化；不同伤害结果之间关系不清晰；刑罚阶梯不均衡，罪名内部刑期设置不尽合理，转化适用的罪名与故意伤害罪间的刑罚均衡也存在问题；条文用语不规范，引发司法适用歧义。故意伤害罪在司法实践中的适用非常粗糙，倚重伤害结果客观归罪倾向严重，忽视酌定情节的量刑功能，缺乏对司法鉴定的实质审查。第二章是关于故意伤害罪要件的认定。着重对伤害的故意、伤害的行为、伤害的结果及伤害的因果关系认定进行论述。认为我国的伤害故意是包括轻伤、重伤在内的概括故意，重伤不是轻伤的加重结果，只是法定刑升格，只有死亡是加重结果。在我国不适宜单独设定故意重伤罪，对于死亡的加重结果要求具有过失。有必要区分殴打故意与伤害故意，伤害故意的转化与另起犯意。依据量刑需求，对伤害行为进行必要分类，立足于我国立法语境下对故意伤害罪所保护法益进行分析。对典型的互殴行为、现场助势行为、被害人同意的伤害行为分别论述，建议将现场助势行为单独定罪，或以单独条款方式规定，提出对被害人同意的伤害行为原则上应认定无罪，但严重违反公序良俗的除外。对于评价伤害结果的司法鉴定标准应尽快修订、统一适用，提示司法工作人员应减少对司法鉴定的过分依赖，认真审查鉴定意见，评定分析所有在案证据综合认证。提出重视精神伤害问题的多学科并行深入研究，并考虑肉体伤害结果与精神伤害结果的关系问题。通过梳理中外理论界关于刑法因果关系学说，总结因果关系研究由注重“归因”到注重“归责”的嬗变。提出采纳修正的条件说作为认定伤害行为与伤害结果刑法因果关系的根据，并具体论述条件说例外情况的具体认定、存在介入因素的因果关系认定、存在被害人责任的因果关系认定。第三章是关于转化型故意伤害罪的认定。通过分析我国转化适用故意伤害罪的个罪条文特征，梳理转化犯的相关理论，并区分法定拟制、注意规定、结果加重犯、想象竞合犯、牵连犯等相近范畴，总结出转化犯与故意伤害罪的内在联系，提出故意伤害罪视角下的转化犯概念：在复数行为犯罪实施过程中，行为人某一行为构成更为严重的犯罪，依照法律特别规定，以该重罪条文定罪量刑的犯罪形态或立法例。认为非法拘禁罪、刑讯逼供罪、暴力取证罪、虐待被监管人罪、聚众斗殴罪、强迫卖血罪、抗税罪是对转化犯的具体规定，并建议将具有类似特征的寻衅滋事罪、暴力干涉婚姻自由罪、妨害公务罪、强迫交易罪等法条以故意伤害罪的转化犯方式予以规定。并指出转化型故意伤害罪在司法适用中存在的疑难问题及适用对策。第四章是关于故意伤害罪共同犯罪的认定。主要对共同伤害的故意及共同伤害的行为分别进行认定。分析共同伤害的故意内涵，解读了我国刑法中“事前通谋”的涵义，并对“共谋”的纷争学说进行梳理。在分析故意伤害罪结果加重犯是否成立共犯的问题时提出我国应不断完善对共同过失行为的理论探讨，推进立法对共同过失犯罪的认可。在现行立法状态下，只要认定各行为人具有共同的伤害故意，且各共犯人①对被害人的死亡结果存在过失，即可成立共同故意伤害犯罪。认为对于故意伤害罪应承认片面帮助犯。对不能认定共同伤害故意的情形——同时伤害、承继伤害、教唆自伤分别予以论述。共同伤害行为模式包括简单共犯与复杂共犯，分析典型共犯形式雇佣伤害行为，对共同伤害中的实行过限具体解析。提出程度实行过限概念，即在认定共同伤害犯罪的前提下，对各共犯人对实行行为及可能结果的程度认识和意志进行具体分析，作为酌定量刑情节予以考虑。并对简单共同伤害形式中特殊情况的责任认定问题予以分析。结语部分进行归纳性总结，提出司法对立法的诉求，即故意伤害罪立法完善的总体构想：将故意伤害行为概括性与类型化规定相结合，增加法定量刑情节条款，注意条文用语的规范性和严谨性，考虑罪名内部及罪名间的刑罚均衡，完善相关立法配套措施及立法补充措施。更多还原

【Abstract】 Being a typical natural crime which violating personal rights, the crime ofintentional injury has a long history and has been the one the most common crimesmet by the judicial branch. In the judicial process, many problems relating to thecrime of intentional injury have been encountered, which calls for further research onthe legislation and the judicial application of the Crime of Intentional Injury. Thisthesis is committed to provide systemized resolution to those common puzzles in thisrespect, which includes the following 4 parts.ChapterⅠsummarized the judicial application of the Crime of Intentional Injury.By reviewing the legislative history of this crime in our country, the author comparedthe legislative models and found the general common grounds of the problems. Oneof the fundamental problems of such legislation is the theory of multiple volitions,which means there are cross between crimes and general volitions, and there arequality and quantity factors in the legislation of crimes. The Crime of IntentionalInjury and common injury belongs to crimes and civil damages respectively. TheCrime of Intentional Injury can be found in the Article 234 and other related parts inthe present Criminal Law of China, which are very vague and there are not cleardescription of the act reus of this crime, resulted in the impropriation between thecrime and punishment. Judges often found themselves totally lost by the imperfectlegislation. On the other hand, the defendant will be in disadvantage position whenfacing such vague legislation.ChapterⅡmainly focus on the judicial determination of the Crime of IntentionalInjury, including the mens rea, the act, the results and the causation. The authorargued that the mens rea of the Crime of Intentional Injury is kind of general intent ofinjury, this is to say that as long as not the intention to kill, the intention to cause corporal injury will be seen as the mens rea of the Crime of Intentional Injury.Judging from this point, there is no need for the legislation of aggravated intentionalinjury, and the mens rea as to the death should be only the negligence. And there iscrucial difference between intention of battery and the intention of injury, thetransition of the intention of injury and the mens rea afterwards. The author putforwards that the judicial branch should differentiate the typical battery, injury underthe consent of the victims and the instigation. The instigation of the Crime ofIntentional Injury should be legislated as an independent crime. The injury under theconsent of the victims should be seen as innocent, though those unreasonable shouldbe criminalized. The author also argued that the judicial forensic rules should berevised so that lessens the judicial risk by not totally relying on this individualevidence. On the contrary, the judges should consider all the legal evidencescomprehensively. Most importantly, the judges should pay more attention to theevidences of psychological injury. The author argued that the traditional causationtheory should give away to the theory of liability allocation, which will be resolve theexceptional causation problems, such as the inventing causation, the injury under theconsent of the victims, etc, more efficiently.ChapterⅢis the judicial determination of the atypical intentional injury, i.e., thetransitional intentional injury. After analyzing the legislation of the Crime ofIntentional Injury, comparing the Crime of Intentional Injury with aggravated injury,the fictional multiple crimes, the author put forward that when there are multiple acts,the most severe one should be held as the basis for the determination of crime. Underthis perspective, acts such as illegal custody, torture for confession, battery in public,selling blood under coercion can all been seen as the Crime of Intentional Injury, so asto the crime of interfering freedom of marriage by violence, naissance and forcefultransition.ChapterⅣis about the accomplice of the Crime of Intentional Injury, especiallythe mens rea and the act resus of the Crime of Intentional Injury. By analyzing theintention beforehand, the author compared different school of thoughts in this respectand argued that the mens rea of accomplice of the Crime of Intentional Injury should include negligence. In the present legislative model, as long as those accomplicesshare the common intention of injury, and they are negligent as to the death of thevictims, they will be found guilty of the Crime of Intentional Injury. As to thosedefendants who share no common mens rea, they will not be seen as the accompliceof the Crime of Intentional Injury.In the conclusion, the author argued that in the revision of the legislation of theCrime of Intentional Injury, the act resus should be more specific and systemized, andthe legal sentencing factors should be added.更多还原