【作者】 姚旻君；

【导师】 罗大华；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 刑法学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 犯罪未遂问题作为犯罪的一种未完成形态,一直是中外学界讨论的热点问题。本文以折中的刑法现代思潮为主线,以二元论的研究范式为指导,系统地阐述了文章在未遂犯的基础理论,障碍未遂的一般理论,障碍未遂的特殊问题以及不能犯问题上的观点。本文重视比较的研究方法,对于未遂犯的基础理论以及障碍未遂理论上,重视整个大陆法系与英美法系国家的比较,在不能犯问题上,重视我国大陆地区与台湾地区的比较,通过对台湾地区不能犯立法转变的分析得出对大陆刑法有益的启示。本文重视理论与实际相结合的研究路径,尤其是在障碍未遂的特殊问题这一章中,在论述问题的基础理论的同时,配以台湾或大陆的实际案例进行详细解读,从而使得出的结论更具有实践理性。本文共分六大部分:引言部分对未遂犯制度的研究现状予以简单的介绍,并指出在现代刑法思潮下重新审视未遂犯的重要意义。第一章是对现代刑法思潮的概述,这是为以后研究未遂犯所做的理论性的铺陈。第二章是未遂犯的概述,探讨了未遂犯制度的历史沿革、概念分类、处罚根据与处罚范围等问题。第三章是障碍未遂犯的一般理论,主要探讨了障碍未遂犯的概念、构成要件(实行着手和没有既遂)、司法认定与处罚等问题。第四章是障碍未遂犯的特殊形态——共同犯罪中的未遂问题,主要探讨了共同正犯的未遂、教唆犯的未遂和帮助犯的未遂。第五章是不能犯,主要探讨了不能犯的概念种类、可罚性、构成要件以及危险性的判断等问题。具体如下:第一章现代刑法思潮的概述第一节刑法发展的历史轨迹概览。本文通过考察得出这样的结论,即现代刑法的发展,经历了一个由蒙昧的古代刑法到黑暗的中世纪刑法再到理性的近代刑法最终归于折中的现代刑法的过程。第二节折中刑法的本体论展开。本文认为,折中刑法在犯罪论领域中表现为相对的罪刑法定原则、二元的行为无价值论和人格责任论(包括规范责任论),在刑罚论中体现为并和主义。第三节折中刑法的价值论确证。本文认为,现代的折中刑法的价值基础是“中庸”思想。正是因为刑法研究单线范式具有不可避免的弊端,才提倡一种折中的研究范式。第四节对第一章的观点进行了小结。第二章未遂犯概述第一节未遂犯的缘起与发展。处罚未遂犯的做法最早可以追溯至古代的罗马法,但现代意义上的未遂犯理论及未遂犯制度在刑法立法中的明文规定,是资产阶级反封建的革命成果。随着资本主义的发展,未遂犯理论也出现了客观未遂论与主观未遂论相对峙的局面。第二节未遂犯的概念与分类。未遂犯有广义与狭义之分,前者包括中止未遂犯,而后者仅指障碍未遂犯。本文采用的是狭义的未遂犯概念,但是,鉴于不能犯与障碍未遂犯之间的特殊关系,将不能犯也一并纳入讨论的范围。第三节未遂犯的处罚根据。在大陆法系刑法理论中,客观的未遂论将行为对法益所造成的客观危险作为处罚未遂的依据,主观的未遂论则在行为人的主观犯意中寻求未遂犯的处罚依据。二者均有缺陷,于是产生了折中的未遂论。折中的未遂论又可以分为两大类:第一类折中未遂论以主观的未遂论为立足点,辅以客观的可罚性基准,如印象说;第二类折中未遂论是以客观的未遂论为基准,兼顾主观的未遂论的内容,即认为未遂犯的处罚根据首先是实现犯罪的现实危险性,其次必须考虑行为人的主观内容。本文赞成后一种观点。英美刑法理论则是从刑罚根据论的角度寻找未遂犯的处罚根据。我国台湾地区刑法理论对此问题与大陆法系刑法理论的观点相同。相比之下,我国大陆地区刑法理论则有所不同,通说认为,行为符合修正的犯罪构成以及其背后的社会危害性理论是未遂犯的处罚根据。本文基于折中未遂论的立场,综合形式判断(构成要件)和实质判断(无价值),初步认为,未遂犯的处罚根据在于符合构成要件的行为(形式客观说)具有危险性(实质客观说)。第四节未遂犯的处罚范围。在成立可能性上,本文认为,过失犯中不存在未遂犯;间接故意犯罪也不应当存在未遂犯;结果加重犯中,分为两种情况,在基本犯既遂但是加重结果尚未发生时,只存在结果加重犯是否成立的问题,而不存在是否未遂的问题。在基本犯未遂但加重结果已发生的情形,应当结合刑事立法中结果加重犯与基本犯是相同罪名还是异种罪名来区别对待;不作为犯,笔者原则上认为不应当存在未遂犯;危险犯,也应当区别对待,本文认为具体危险犯不存在未遂犯,而抽象危险犯存在未遂犯。在未遂犯的规定模式上,有概括规定式、概括列举结合式与混合与区别规定式,我国大陆地区刑法的普遍概括式并不合理。第三章障碍未遂犯的一般理论第一节障碍未遂犯概述。关于障碍未遂犯的性质,本文并不同意将未遂犯视为(具体或抽象)危险犯的见解。关于障碍未遂犯的构成要件,本文采取“实行的着手”与“没有既遂”两要件说。第二节实行的着手。是否着手实行犯罪是未遂犯与预备犯的区别所在。关于实行的着手的学说,客观未遂论主张客观说,具体包括“形式客观说”与“实质客观说”(其中又包括“实质的行为说”与“实质的结果说”);主观未遂论主张主观说,其内部又分为纯粹的主观说和修正的主观说。折中未遂论主张折中说,其内部又可分为主观的客观说与个别的客观说。本文主张以客观说为主、辅以主观说的折中说。在具体犯罪形态认定上,对于不作为犯的着手,主要是研究不纯正不作为犯的着手问题。本文认为,只有当违反作为义务的行为产生了发生结果的具体危险时,才是不作为犯的着手;对于间接正犯的着手,本文持个别化说,即原则上应当持利用者说,特殊情况以被利用者说进行修正;对于原因自由行为的着手,本文赞同原因行为说;对于隔离犯的着手,本文持个别化说。第三节没有既遂。关于既遂标准,一直存在“结果说”、“行为说”、“目的说”与“构成要件说”之争。本文秉持折中的立场,当然持综合的构成要件说。第四节几种常见犯罪的未遂问题的司法认定。对杀人罪、放火罪、强奸罪、抢劫罪、盗窃罪等几种常见犯罪的着手、既遂标准加以分析。第五节障碍未遂犯的处罚。对于障碍未遂犯的处罚有同等主义、必减主义与得减主义,得减主义应当被支持。此外,未遂的程度也影响着对行为人的量刑。第四章障碍未遂犯的特殊形态——共同犯罪中的未遂问题第一节共同正犯的未遂。关于共同正犯的着手,应当采取全体的解决说;关于共同正犯的既遂与未遂能否并存的问题,即使是亲手犯,也应当持否定说。第二节教唆犯的未遂。关于教唆犯的性质,本文赞同限制从属性说;关于教唆未遂的问题,本文主张只有在正犯着手实行的情形下,才有处罚教唆犯的可能。这一结论已经从我国台湾地区修法中得以印证,它也必将影响到我国大陆地区刑法的理论与实践。第三节帮助犯的未遂。在帮助犯的成立条件上,本文主张限制的从属说,即只有在正犯实施符合构成要件且违法的行为时,帮助犯才有成立的余地;在帮助犯是否存在未遂问题上,本文赞同肯定说,并认为帮助犯的未遂犯只存在于正犯者已经着手实行犯罪而未遂时;在帮助犯的未遂的成立范围上,只有正犯(障碍)未遂或中止的形态,帮助犯才是(障碍)未遂。第五章不能犯第一节不能犯概论。不能犯尚无统一的概念,但它与迷信犯、误想犯不同。一般将不能犯划分为方法不能犯、客体不能犯、主体不能犯,但主体不能犯不在本文讨论范围内。第二节不能犯之可罚性问题比较研究。在大陆法系刑法立法与理论中,德国、法国认为不能犯可罚,意大利、日本认为不能犯不可罚;在英美法系刑法立法与理论中,一般承认不能犯的可罚性;我国大陆地区刑法理论通说将不能犯视为犯罪未遂的一种类型(不能未遂犯),具有可罚性;我国台湾地区刑法对于不能犯的立法则经历了从可罚到减免处罚再到不罚的过程。第三节不能犯的构成要件。可罚的不能犯与障碍未遂犯构成要件一致,不可罚的不能犯的构成要件的核心就在于行为没有危险性。因而,危险性的判断成为整个不能犯理论的核心。第四节不能犯的危险性判断。按照主观说与客观说两大阵营的界分,不能犯的危险性判断的主要学说可分为纯粹的主观说与抽象危险说,客观的危险说(绝对不能、相对不能说)、修正的客观危险说与具体危险说等。上述学说在危险的判断资料、判断时间、判断标准上存在形式的差异,在对刑法规范的构造、刑法的基本立场、违法性的实质以及违法性的根据的理解上存在实质的不同。本文基于折中的立场,赞同具体危险说,反对抽象危险说与修正的客观危险说。更多还原

【Abstract】 The criminal attempt, as an unaccomplished form of crime, has long been a hot topic in the academic circle. This article, basing on the compromised theory of modern criminal law and the dual paradigm of study, has systematically elaborated opinions on the basic theory of attempted offence, the general and special principles of obstacle attempted offence and impossibility.This article emphasizes comparative method in study. When talking about the basic theory of attempted offence and obstacle attempted offence, it stresses the comparative opinions between the whole civil law system and common law system countries. When talking about impossibility, it stresses the comparative opinions between mainland and Taiwan and gives mainland some beneficial revelations through the analyses of Taiwan’s legislation.This article also attaches importance to the path of combining theory and practice, and especially in the chapter of special problems of obstacle attempted offence, it analyses cases in Taiwan or mainland in detail while discussing the basic theories so that the conclusion seems to be rational.This article is composed by six parts:The introduction part simply introduces the present study on criminal attempt, and fingers out the importance of reconsider it under the trend of modern criminal law thought.Chapter I is the general introduction of the trend of modern criminal law thought, which is a cover for the following criminal attempt study.Chapter II is the general introduction of attempted offence, in which it talks about the history, the concept, the basement and the scope of punishment. Chapter III is the general theory of obstacle attempted offence, in which it mainly talks about the concept, the elements of constitution and punishment etc. Chapter IV is the special form of obstacle attempted offence——criminal attempt in joint crime, in which it mainly talks about the attempt in joint principal offender, instigator and accessory offender.Chapter V is impossibility, in which it mainly talks about the concept, punishability, elements of constitution and danger judgment of impossibility. The details are as follows:Chapter I The general introduction of the trend of modern criminal law thoughtSection I General review on the history of criminal law. This article argues that the criminal law has experienced a long process from an obscurantic one in ancient time to a dark one in middle ages to a rational one in modern times and finally to a compromised one in present.Section II The ontology of the compromised criminal law. This article argues that the compromised criminal law can be concluded as the relative principle of nullum crimen sine lege, the dual theory of conduct without value and the theory of personality responsibility in the field of criminal part and the dualism in the field of penal part.Section III The axiology of the compromised criminal law. This article argues that the value of compromised criminal law lies in the idea of“mean”. The compromised paradigm is advocated because the unitary paradigm has some unavoidable defects.Section IV Summary. This part sums up opinions in Chapter I.Chapter II The general introduction of attempted offenseSection I The origin and development of attempted offense. The punishment of attempted offense might date back to Roman law,but modern theory and system of attempted offense was established during Bourgeoisie fighting against the Feudalism. With the development of Capitalism, the discussion between objectivism and subjectivism appeared. Section II The conception and sorts of attempted offense. Criminal attempts are of two varieties: attempted offense in a broad sense which includes discontinuous attempted offense and obstacle attempted offense; attempted offense in a narrow sense which is just obstacle attempted offense. This article advocates the latter one, but due to the special relation between impossibility and obstacle attempted offense, impossibility is also brought into discussion.Section III The justification of punishment of attempted offense. In civil law system, the justification of punishment interpreted by objectivism lies in the objective danger made by the act to legal interests, while the one interpreted by subjectivism insists it is the mens rea of the actor. However, both are so imperfect that compromised theory arises. Compromised theory can be classified by two kinds according to object part or subject part is superior. The first category is that objectivism is primary and subjectivism is subsidiary, e.g. impression theory. The second category is that subjectivism is primary and objectivism is subsidiary, and this theory insists that the basement of punishment for attempted offense is first the real danger of crime accomplishment and then the mens rea of the actor. This article adopts the latter one. In common law system, the justification of punishment of attempted offense lies in the justification of penalty. Theories of criminal law of Taiwan are consistent with the ones in civil law system in this aspect; however, viewpoints in Chinese criminal law vary a lot. The general view argues that the foundation of punishing attempted offense lies in the offender’s act fulfilling with the modified constitution and the theory of social harm. This paper, basing on formative judgment (elements of constitution) and substantial judgment (no-value), initially puts forward that the justification of punishment is that the offender’s act which fulfills with the modified constitution has danger to violate legal interests.Section IV The scope of punishing attempted offense. Attempted offense shall not exist in negligent offense, indirectly intentional crime and omission offense. In the case of result-aggravated offense, if basic crime has been accomplished but aggravated result has not occurred, no attempted offense shall exist; if basic crime has not been accomplished but aggravated result has occurred, it shall be analyzed concretely by considering whether aggravated crime and basic crime belong to the same accusation. In the case of dangerous offense, concrete dangerous offense has no attempted offense while abstract dangerous offense has it. The patterns of provision for regulating attempted crime have the generalized one, the specialized one and the mixed one. In this aspect, Chinese criminal law’s regulation is unreasonable.Chapter III General theories of obstacle attemptedSection I General views on obstacle attempted offense. As to the character of obstacle attempted offense, this paper does not agree with the opinion that considers the attempted offense as a kind of (concrete or abstract) dangerous offense. As to the elements of its constitution, this paper adopts the two-element model which includes the commencement of implement and the unaccomplished offense.Section II Commencement of implement. It is the key point to distinguish attempted offense and preparatory offense whether the act commences. Among theories of commencement of implement, objectivism claims for the objective theory which includes formal one and substantial one, and the latter can also be classified by theory of act and theory of result; Subjectivism claims for the subjective theory in which pure subjective theory and modified subjective theory are hotly discussed. Compromised theory, basing on eclecticism, is composed of subjective one and individual one. This paper advocates the compromised theory in which objective theory is primary while subjective theory is accessorial.As to the shapes of concrete crimes, the issue of commencement of implement of omission offense is chiefly discussed. This paper holds that omission offense could only commence when an omission which violates the duty to act has caused a concrete danger. As to the judgment for commencement of indirect principle offender, this paper holds exceptional theory, that is, the criteria of the man who utilizes is principle, and the one of the man who is utilized is exceptional. As to the judgment for commencement of actia libera in causa, this paper holds the causal behavior theory. As to the judgment for commencement of partition offense, this paper holds the exceptional theory.Section III Unaccomplished offense. There are different views on the standard of accomplished offense, for example, the theory of result, the theory of act, the theory of purpose and the theory of elements of constitution. Basing on the compromised stand, this paper advocates the comprehensive one which is surely the theory of elements of constitution.Section IV The legal assertion of attempted offense of several common crimes. This part analyzes the criteria of commencement and accomplishment for some common crimes such as crimes of homicide, fire, rape, robbery and theft etc.Section V The punishment of obstacle attempted offense. There are different models on punishing obstacle attempted offense, such as equality one, compulsive reduction one and selective reduction one, and the last one should be advocated. Besides, the extent of attempt affects sentencing too.Chapter IV The special form of obstacle attempt——criminal attempt in joint crimeSection I Attempt of joint principal offender. As to the commencement of joint principal offender, all-solution theory should be adopted; attempt offense and subjective crime of joint principal offender can not coexist, even in the case of personally committing crime.Section II Attempt of instigator. As to the character of instigator, this paper holds restrictive hypotaxis theory. As to attempt of instigator, this paper holds that only when the principal offender starts to commit a crime can the instigator be punished. This conclusion has been verified by the amendment of Taiwan criminal law and it will surely bring great influences on the theory and practice of Chinese criminal law.Section III Attempt of accessory offender. As to the elements of accessory offender, this paper holds restrictive hypotaxis theory, that is, only when the principal offender has done some illegal acts fulfilling the crime constitution can the accessory offender be possible to be punished. As to whether attempt of accessory offender exists, this paper holds positive opinion, and considers that attempt of accessory offender forms only when the principal offender has started to commit a crime but not accomplished. As to the scope of obstacle attempt of accessory offender, only when principal offender does not accomplish or abandon the crime can accessory offender be obstacle attempted crime.Chapter V ImpossibilitySection I Conspectus of impossibility. There is no united concept of impossibility, but it differs from superstition offence and wrong-thinking offence. Generally speaking, impossibility can be classified by means impossibility, object impossibility and subject impossibility, however subject impossibility will not talked about in this article.Section II Comparative research on punishability of impossibility. In the legislations and theories of civil law countries, Germany and France consider impossibility be punishable while Italy and Japan prescribe that impossibility is unpunishable. In common law system, impossibility is generally considered to be punishable. In China’s mainland, impossibility is one type of criminal attempt (impossible attempted crime) which is punishable. In Taiwan, impossibility is changed from being punished to being impeccable.Section III The elements of constitution of impossibility. Punishable impossibility has the same elements of constitution with obstacle attempted offence, while the core of elements of constitution of unpunishable impossibility lie in that the act has no danger. Therefore, the judgment of danger has become the core of the whole impossibility theory.Section IV The judgment of danger of impossibility. According to the classification of subject and object theory, the main theories on the judgment of danger of impossibility can be classified as pure subjective theory, abstract danger theory, objective danger theory, modified objective danger theory and concrete danger theory etc. These theories differ a lot on the material, time and criteria of danger judgment, and have substantial difference on the understanding of the construction of criminal law form, the basic stand, the essential and basement of illegality. Based on a compromised stand, this article agrees with the concrete danger theory and rejects abstract danger theory and modified objective danger theory.更多还原