论结果加重犯的共犯 - 以一起故意伤害致死案为例

• 영문명: On the Accomplice of the Aggravated Consequential Offense - With A Case of an Intentional Injury to Death for Example
• 발행기관: 원광대학교 법학연구소
• 저자명: 조휘(Zhao Hui)(赵 辉 )
• 간행물 정보: 『원광법학』제33권 제2호, 261~273쪽, 전체 13쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 법학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2017.06.30

국문 초록

In the aggravated consequential offense of joint crime, the problem need to research is that more than two people jointly implement the basic crime, by one person or several people s behaviors causing heavier results, the criminal law provides the heavier penalties for the basic crime penalty, so the other co-perpetrators who do not directly cause the aggravated consequences should bear criminal responsibility for more serious results? In this regard, the prevailing view of Chinese criminal law theory is that the common principal offender of the basic crime should be responsible for the aggravated results, because the common criminals are the implementation of basic crime behavior, and the results may be equal. Besides, there is subjective negligence, so it should be responsible for the results of the increase. However, for narrowly committed accomplice, it is not directly involved in the implementation of the act of perpetrating, then whether to set up the results of aggravated accomplice, whether to bear the criminal responsibility of the results? Chinese scholars have different views. This article starts with the intentional injury case in practice, and puts forward the controversial issue. By examining the different views of scholars in Japanese criminal law theory, this paper analyzes various analyses of Chinese scholars, and puts forward their own views based on the provisions of Chinese criminal law. Article 25 of the Criminal Law of the People s Republic of China stipulates that a joint crime refers to an intentional crime committed by two or more persons jointly. A negligent crime committed by two or more persons jointly shall not be punished as a joint crime; however, those who should bear criminal responsibility shall be individually punished according to the crimes they have committed. Therefore, based on the provisions of the Criminal Law, China s common crime theory holds the idea that the establishment of a common crime must be the perpetrators in the joint implementation of a certain crime mean, mutual use, and complement each other’s behavior, so that the behavior of the perpetrators as a whole achieves crime. That is, it must be that more than two people have deliberately subjective common crime, common crime objectively. The so-called common criminal intent , refers to the common criminals through contacts, a common understanding of their criminal acts will entail harmful consequences to society. They participate in the joint crime and hope or indulge the outcome of mental attitude. Negligent crime, for the perpetrators, it is not impossible to form the meaning of contact, and can’t set up a joint crime. Therefore, from the provisions of the current criminal law in China and the traditional theory of criminal law, the joint crime that the aggravated consequential offense with the heavier result in negligence form is not established, whether it is a common prisoner, or an instigator or help offenders. On the above analysis, the establishment of the accomplice of the aggravated offense in the Chinese criminal law should be divided into the following two cases: Firstly, for the intentional aggravated consequential offense, accomplice of the basic crime can increase results to form the joint crime. However, the occurrence of the results of all the actors must have a common intention. If all or two or more part of the perpetrators deliberately cause the occurrence of heavy results, but there is no common meaning, only a single intention, the heavier result is only committed at the same time. Secondly, for the negligent aggravated consequential offense, the accomplice of the crime can’t be aggravated by the results of the establishment of aggravated consequential offense.

영문 초록

二人以上共同实施基本的犯罪行为时, 由其中一人或数人的行为引起了较重的结果, 刑法对该较重的结果规定了比基本犯罪的刑罚更重的刑罚, 没有直接引起加重结果的其余共同犯罪人应否对该较重的结果承担刑事责任呢?对此, 中国刑法理论通行的观点认为, 基本罪的共同正犯都应该对加重结果负责。但是, 对于帮助犯、教唆犯能否成立结果加重犯的共犯, 是否对加重结果承担刑事责任, 存在不同观点。 基于刑法的规定, 中国的共同犯罪理论认为成立共同犯罪必须是两人以上主观上有共同犯罪的故意, 客观上有共同犯罪的行为。因此, 重结果为过失形态的结果加重犯的共犯是不成立的, 不论是共同正犯, 还是教唆犯或帮助犯。所以, 法中结果加重犯的共犯之成立与否, 应当分为以下两种情况：对于加重结果的罪过形式为故意的结果加重犯, 基本罪的共犯能够就加重结果成立共同犯罪；对于加重结果的罪过形式为过失的结果加重犯, 基本罪的共犯不能就加重结果成立结果加重犯的共犯。 基本罪的共犯是否应当就加重结果承担刑事责任? 对于重结果可以为故意形态的结果加重犯, 实行行为人故意导致了重结果的发生的, 共犯与之有共同故意的, 应成立结果加重犯之共犯, 就重结果共同承担刑事责任；不具有共同故意, 不能成立结果加重犯的共犯, 但共犯对于实行行为人故意所造成的加重结果应当预见并且能够预见的, 应当承担过失的责任；否则只能由重结果的引起人承担责任。对于实行行为人的行为过失导致了较重的结果时, 虽然不成立结果加重犯的共犯, 但这并不意味着可以认为基本罪的共犯一概不对该加重结果承担责任；对加重结果的发生具有过失的共犯, 应当承担其刑事责任。 结果加重犯由于基本的犯罪行为包含发生一定重结果的高度危险性, 所以共同故意实施基本犯罪的行为人, 对重结果的发生应当具有具体的预见可能性, 因而应当认为有避免重结果发生的特别注意义务。以共同犯罪的意思实施基本罪时, 各共同犯罪人相互利用、补充对方的行为, 这就使得各共犯的行为成为了一个整体。在这种情况下, 各共犯应当预见到这个行为整体有导致重结果发生的可能, 从而负有避免该行为整体造成重结果发生的特别注意义务。因此, 各共犯不仅要负有避免自己的行为发生加重结果的义务, 而且还负有避免他人的行为造成加重结果的义务。当共犯负有这种防止加重结果发生的义务, 但没有加以注意, 以致产生了加重结果时, 就存在导致加重结果发生的过失。因此, 共犯应当对自己的过失行为承担刑事责任。然而, 需要强调的是, 并不能排除在具体案件中, 共犯对加重结果并不一定都能够预见的情况, 如果一律判令其承担加重责任也是不合理的。

목차

국문초록

一、问题的提出

二、结果加重犯的共犯之理论考察

三、结果加重犯的共犯之成立分析

四、共犯对加重结果的刑事责任

五、对案例的分析

Abstract

키워드

aggravated consequential offense accomplice negligence criminal responsibility 结 果加重犯 共犯 过 失 刑事责 任