【作者】 吴飞飞；

【导师】 李洁；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 刑法学， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 面对司法实践中常见多发的“亲属型共同受贿”或“家庭型共同受贿”问题，传统的间接正犯理论似乎有些力不从心。本文正是从最高法审理的一个典型案例入手，对间接正犯的传统理论提出质疑，尤其认为现在较为流行的“非共同犯罪性”说存在诸多不甚合理之处。而且在这种“非共同犯罪性”说的理论指引下，出现了间接正犯理论和司法实践相脱节的现象，本文笔者正是从这一点出发提出了自己对间接正犯理论的理解。第一部分首先引用了最高法的一个实有案例，罗列了在传统间接正犯理论的框架下对该案例的不同处理方法，认为第四种观点更为可行进而在后文中作出了应有的理论论证。第二部分本文是根据构成要件理论的规范性的考察方法解决了间接正犯的正犯性问题。通过对间接正犯的三种传统定义方式——利用工具说、列举说和“非共同犯罪性”说之不足的剖析提出自己对间接正犯的认识，认为间接正犯是指通过他人不完全充足刑法所规定之特定犯罪构成要件的定型行为以实施犯罪的情形。并对该种定义下的间接正犯之特征作出了全方位的揭示：首先从利用人的角度，分别从语义学和刑法学的视角论证了何谓“间接”“正犯”；其次从被利用人的角度论证了被利用人所实施的“定型行为”，认为该定型行为具有客观性、定型性和相对性的特点；再次认为概念中的“通过”一词比传统概念所使用的“利用”更为合适；最后从间接正犯与共同犯罪的关系入手，认为二者不是一个层次的理论问题，行为人构成间接正犯以后完全可以再通过共同犯罪理论来解决利用人和被利用人之间的共犯关系。在揭示了其特征后又比照直接正犯的构成理论——四要件论阐释了间接正犯的构成。第三部分论述了间接正犯的着手问题，该问题正是间接正犯理论产生以来理论上争论最为激烈的问题之一。笔者认为间接正犯的实行行为应该成为我们普通所言的实行行为之一种特殊形态。因此该一部分笔者首先论证了实行行为着手的一般理论。并通过对大陆法系刑法理论关于着手的争<WP=46>论，比较了客观说（包括形式的客观说和实质的客观说）、主观说和折衷说各自的利弊，以及我国学者所谓的法益侵害说之所长，提出应当采取形式的客观说和法益侵害说相结合的结合说。只有将二者相结合才能更好的判断实行行为的着手。其次，笔者论证了间接正犯的实行行为。本来实行行为和实行行为的着手可以看成是一个问题的两个方面，但是这里笔者先论证间接正犯的实行行为接下来其着手问题就不证自明了。笔者认为，间接正犯的实行行为作为实行行为的一种特殊存在类型，该理论与实行行为的一般理论是特殊与一般的关系，并且可以秉承对实行行为一般理论的认识思路对间接正犯的实行行为加以解说。通过对利用者说、个别化说和结合说各学说的批驳，论证了被利用者说之优长，并主张被利用者说。最后，由于前面论证了间接正犯的实行行为应当采取被利用者说，因此其实行行为的着手应当被认为是被利用者所实施定型行为的开始之时点。本文最后一部分是间接正犯的存在类型。首先讨论的是间接正犯的存在类型绪说；从间接正犯存在的事实类型和学理类型两个方面来做到对间接正犯的存在类型加以全面掌握。其中间接正犯的事实类型主要是从被利用者的角度观察的，分为主体要件欠缺型、主观要件欠缺型和客体要件欠缺型三种，只有作如此分类才能囊括间接正犯的所有存在类型，使该种分类具有“开放性”的特征——即能涵盖现存的各种类型同时更能预设以后可能出现的应当用间接正犯理论加以解释的存在类型，以此来更好的完善间接正犯理论并指导实践中的准确认定犯罪、判处刑罚。至于间接正犯的学理类型主要是从利用者和被利用者两个方面考察的。分为故意、过失间接正犯和作为、不作为间接正犯。其次笔者主要论证了不作为的间接正犯。讨论了不作为间接正犯的存在理由并做出了具体阐释。最后笔者探讨了有故意无身份型的间接正犯。这主要是因为该种类型的间接正犯存在的问题较多同时对本文开头所提案例做出回应。通过对身份犯罪的实行犯以及身份犯和亲手犯的关系两个问题的说明，得出该种有故意无身份型的间接正犯的应然存在的结论。更多还原

【Abstract】 Facing the problem of “bribe among relatives” or “bribe among family members” which frequently happens in judicatory practice, the traditional theory of indirect principal seems to have nothing to do with it. The writer approaches this problem with a typical case trailed in Supreme Court, and put forward some doubts about the traditional theory. Further more, the writer think that the popular theory of “non-accomplice” has quite a few disadvantages. And just under the guidance of this theory, the phenomenon of practice disjointed mutually arises. The writer sets out exactly from this point of view to put forward his own theoretical comprehension to indirect principal.The first part quoted an existent case tried by the Supreme Court to enumerate different pinions within the frame of the traditional theory of indirect principal. The writer comes to the conclusion that the fourth standpoint is more practical and has done some theoretical argument in the following text.The second part of the text solves the problem of the nature of indirect principal by the means of theoretical and normative investigation into the theory of essential elements. The writer finds the disadvantages of the three traditional methods to define indirect principal and argues that indirect principal is a kind of crime that cannot satisfies sufficiently the elements of typical crimes prescribed in the Penal Code. Moreover, the writer uncovers the characteristics of indirect principal according to this definition: firstly, from the perspective of the user, describing the nature of indirect principal in linguistics and the Penal Code; secondly, from the perspective of the used, defines the “typical behavior” conducted by the used, thinking that the behavior is objective, typical and relative; thirdly, repeating that the word <WP=48>"through/by" is more suitable than the phrase “making use of” in the traditional concept; Finally, starting from the differences between indirect principal and accomplice, arguing the two are not on the same level, follows that the characteristics are the basic elements of indirect principal compared with the theory of direct principal offender.The third part discusses the outset problem of indirect principal, which is exactly the core of the dispute ever since the theory’s creation. The writer thinks that the outset behavior of indirect principal should be a special form of the outset behaviors we usually refer to. So in this part the writer first discusses the general theories of the outset behavior, compares the theories of objectivity, subjectivity, neutrality with the theory of damages of legal interests, and points out that we should combine the pinions of the theories of objectivity and the theory of damages of legal interests. Only by having the two combined together can we get the better judgment. Then the writer discusses the executive behavior of indirect principal. In fact the outset behavior and the executive behavior are the two aspects of the problem, but the writer chooses to discuss the executive behavior to make the outset behavior self-evident. The writer thinks that the executive behavior of indirect principal, as a special type, can be explained by the general theories. After criticizing different theories, the writer concludes that the theory of the used is the best one. Accordingly, the outset of the executive behavior should be regarded as the point of start of the executive behavior of the used.The last part is the types of indirect principal. The writer first gives an introduction, explaining the problem from two aspects of the factual types and the theoretical types. The factual types are observed from the perspective of the used, divided into three categories of lacking the elements of subject, lacking the subjective elements and lacking the elements of object. Only such an open classification can bag all the types of indirect principal and enhance <WP=49>the practice of indirect principal now and in the future. As to the theoretical types of indirect principal, the wri更多还原