数额犯未遂问题研究

A study on Attempt in Crime of Amount

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属院系:

法学院

作者:

王秀霞

导师:

袁林

导师单位:

法学院

学位:

硕士

语种:

其他

关键词:

数额犯;数额;犯罪未遂;存在根据

摘要:

内容摘要随着市场经济的发展,数额犯罪呈现出多发性、复杂性的特性。数额犯已经成为刑法理论和司法实践的讨论热点,特别是对数额犯未遂问题的争议从未间断,但至今在理论层面和立法层面均未形成统一认识,这严重制约了刑法公正、秩序理念的实现。由于数额犯未遂问题的研究是一个庞大的论证工程,因此本文仅就数额犯未遂某些方面的问题展开讨论,试图撬动数额犯未遂整体架构的冰山一角,为进一步完善数额犯未遂的立法与司法,有效维护市场经济有序运行提供有益意见。论文的主要内容分为五个部分,分别从数额犯的内涵,数额犯的理论基础以及数额犯的立法和司法实践等方面进行了阐述。第一部分内容是对数额犯未遂的争议与评析的论述。关于数额犯是否存在未遂,理论界共存在三种不同的观点:肯定说、否定说、折中说,通过比较研究发现,各种观点的争议焦点在于“数额的功能定位、数额犯未遂的存在与否”等方面;第二部分内容是对数额犯未遂理论的基本问题的论述。数额犯未遂理论的基本问题主要包括数额犯概念界定、数额的功能定位两个方面。数额犯是刑法规定的以数额为犯罪构成要件要素的犯罪类型,数额的功能定位应是具有定性与定量功能的犯罪构成要件要素,不是客观处罚条件;第三部分内容是对数额犯未遂的理论重构的论述。数额犯未遂的理论重构包括数额犯未遂的存在根据、存在条件、存在范围三个方面。数额犯存在犯罪未遂符合我国的犯罪构成理论规定、立法规定以及刑法的设定目的;数额犯未遂的存在条件是行为人已经着手实行数额犯的实行行为,但由于意志以外的原因未得逞的一类犯罪状态,;数额犯存在犯罪未遂并不意味着所有的数额犯都存在犯罪未遂,而应当严格限定范围,这一范围既要受到犯罪未遂范围的限制也要受到数额犯未遂范围的限制。第四部分内容是对规范层面的数额犯未遂的现状与完善的论述。在规范层面数额犯未遂之所以存在问题,一方面是由于犯罪未遂规定过于概括,另一方面是由于数额犯规定本身不合理。因此对数额犯未遂的立法完善需要从犯罪未遂和数额犯两个方面进行立法与司法解释完善。第五部分的内容是对数额犯未遂在实践层面的现状和完善的论述。实践层面上,由于立法不完善以及缺乏数额犯分类意识,往往产生对同一个数额犯未遂的行为有不同的司法评价,而不同的数额犯未遂行为确有相同的司法评价的现象。因此需要在实践层面坚持主客观一致的原则,分层次、分步骤的对数额犯未遂行为进行合理评价。

学科:

刑法学

提交日期

2019-04-11

引用参考

王秀霞. 数额犯未遂问题研究[D]. 西南政法大学,2012.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 数额犯未遂问题研究
  • dc.title
  • A study on Attempt in Crime of Amount
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20090301040274
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 王秀霞
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 法学院
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法学硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2012
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 袁林
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 法学院
  • dc.language.iso
  • 其他
  • dc.subject
  • 数额犯;数额;犯罪未遂;存在根据
  • dc.subject
  • crime of amount;amount;attempted crime;foundation of existence
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 内容摘要随着市场经济的发展,数额犯罪呈现出多发性、复杂性的特性。数额犯已经成为刑法理论和司法实践的讨论热点,特别是对数额犯未遂问题的争议从未间断,但至今在理论层面和立法层面均未形成统一认识,这严重制约了刑法公正、秩序理念的实现。由于数额犯未遂问题的研究是一个庞大的论证工程,因此本文仅就数额犯未遂某些方面的问题展开讨论,试图撬动数额犯未遂整体架构的冰山一角,为进一步完善数额犯未遂的立法与司法,有效维护市场经济有序运行提供有益意见。论文的主要内容分为五个部分,分别从数额犯的内涵,数额犯的理论基础以及数额犯的立法和司法实践等方面进行了阐述。第一部分内容是对数额犯未遂的争议与评析的论述。关于数额犯是否存在未遂,理论界共存在三种不同的观点:肯定说、否定说、折中说,通过比较研究发现,各种观点的争议焦点在于“数额的功能定位、数额犯未遂的存在与否”等方面;第二部分内容是对数额犯未遂理论的基本问题的论述。数额犯未遂理论的基本问题主要包括数额犯概念界定、数额的功能定位两个方面。数额犯是刑法规定的以数额为犯罪构成要件要素的犯罪类型,数额的功能定位应是具有定性与定量功能的犯罪构成要件要素,不是客观处罚条件;第三部分内容是对数额犯未遂的理论重构的论述。数额犯未遂的理论重构包括数额犯未遂的存在根据、存在条件、存在范围三个方面。数额犯存在犯罪未遂符合我国的犯罪构成理论规定、立法规定以及刑法的设定目的;数额犯未遂的存在条件是行为人已经着手实行数额犯的实行行为,但由于意志以外的原因未得逞的一类犯罪状态,;数额犯存在犯罪未遂并不意味着所有的数额犯都存在犯罪未遂,而应当严格限定范围,这一范围既要受到犯罪未遂范围的限制也要受到数额犯未遂范围的限制。第四部分内容是对规范层面的数额犯未遂的现状与完善的论述。在规范层面数额犯未遂之所以存在问题,一方面是由于犯罪未遂规定过于概括,另一方面是由于数额犯规定本身不合理。因此对数额犯未遂的立法完善需要从犯罪未遂和数额犯两个方面进行立法与司法解释完善。第五部分的内容是对数额犯未遂在实践层面的现状和完善的论述。实践层面上,由于立法不完善以及缺乏数额犯分类意识,往往产生对同一个数额犯未遂的行为有不同的司法评价,而不同的数额犯未遂行为确有相同的司法评价的现象。因此需要在实践层面坚持主客观一致的原则,分层次、分步骤的对数额犯未遂行为进行合理评价。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • AbstractSince the reform and opening-up, especially with the development of market economy, crimes of amount exist in economic area show obvious characters of multiple occurrences and complexity. There is an apparent upwards trend in the crime rate of crimes of amount. Crimes of amount have now become a hot topic in judicial practice and criminal theory. The dispute over attempted crime in crimes of amount has never stopped; the consensus has not yet reached in theory or in legislation, which obstructs the realization of justice and order in criminal law. Considering a gigantic discussion process the research of attempted crime in crimes of amount would be, this paper just conducts discussions about several aspects of attempted crime in crimes of amount, tries to pry a corner of the iceberg, and provides helpful advices to improve legislation and judicial practice in attempted crime in crimes of amount so as to ensure the orderly and efficient operation of market economy.There are five parts in this paper. The first part is an introduction and analysis of disputes over attempted crime in crimes of amount. There are three different opinions in academic world: positive theory, negative theory and compromise theory. The cores of disputes are identification of the function of amount, and the existence of attempted crime in crimes of amount. The second part focuses on solving basic theoretical issues of attempted crime in crimes of amount, which include definition of crimes of amount and identification of the function of amount. The crime of amount is a type of crime that contains amount as its constitutive requirements. The function of amount is not an objective requirement of penalty, but a constitutive requirement which has qualitative and quantitative functions. The third part is a theoretical reconstruction of attempted crime in crimes of amount. This part consists of the foundation, requirement and scope of the existence of attempted crime in crimes of amount. The existence of attempted crime in crimes of amount complies with theory of crime constitution, legislative regulation, the arranged goal of criminal law. The requirement of attempted crime in crimes of amount to exist is the behavior has already conducted the act of perpetrating, but it cannot be completed because of unexpected elements. The existence of attempted crime in crimes of amount does not mean all crimes of amount have the situation of attempted crime; it has a boundary, which is limited by the scope of attempted crimes, and the scope of attempted crimes in crimes of amount. The fourth part analyzes the current condition and improvement of attempted crimes in crimes of amount in legislation. The reason that leads to problems in attempted crimes in crimes of amount are, on one hand, the over general regulations of attempted crimes; on the other hand, there are unscientific provisions in crimes of amount itself. Therefore, the legislative improvement should be conducted in legislative and judicial explanation of the attempted crime and crime of amount. The fifth part analyzes the current condition and improvement of attempted crimes in crimes of amount in practice. In practice, due to the imperfection in legislation, lack of awareness of classification of crimes of amount, and the false opinion of “amount center theory”, there are different judicial assessments about attempted crime in the same crime of amount and same judicial assessments about attempted crime in different crimes of amount. Thus, this paper proposes insisting on the principle of consistence between objective and subjective elements, assessing the attempted behavior in crimes of amount hierarchically, and step by step.
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D914
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2026-03-18
  • dc.date.oralDefense
  • 2012-05-05
回到顶部