【作者】 杨明；

【导师】 王军明；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 刑法学， 2020， 硕士

【摘要】 为了实现刑法功能,确保打击刑事犯罪的周密性和彻底性,刑法在编织罪名网格时,在一些重点领域难免出现交叉重叠,而犯罪构成的模糊性和开放性,又使得同一个行为可能被归入两个犯罪构成中。这种认定困难反应在司法实践中,就是寻衅滋事罪和故意伤害罪的混淆适用,以及由此带来的裁判标准不统一,同案不同判。在我国刑法规范中,寻衅滋事罪和故意伤害罪分属不同的犯罪构成,在法理上,寻衅滋事罪和故意伤害罪所保护的法益虽有交叉但是并不完全一致,甚至可以说泾渭分明。从司法实践来看,随意殴打他人型寻衅滋事罪与故意伤害罪在适用过程中往往发生重叠,尤其是“随意殴打”之“随意”判定“故意伤害他人身体”与“情节恶劣”之竞合,导致随意殴打他人型寻衅滋事罪和故意伤害罪区分困难。司法工作者和诉讼参与人因为立场不同、参与阶段不同,对同一案情也有不同的认识,从而导致各方对随意殴打他人型寻衅滋事罪和故意伤害罪的区分都有不同认识。更何况,故意伤害罪在我国司法实践中原本就是一个充满争议的罪名。因正当防卫、聚众斗殴、寻衅滋事都有可能导致被害人人身伤害,且在犯罪手段上具有相似性,导致在我国司法实践中,故意伤害罪是日本等国家故意伤害罪的四倍之多。这也间接证明,在我国司法实践中对故意伤害罪的认定存在一定的偏差,而这其中既包括把本应当认定为故意伤害罪的情形认定为随意殴打型寻衅滋事罪,也包括将随意殴打型寻衅滋事罪认定为故意伤害罪。多年来,针对这个问题,学者们从法益保护、犯罪动机、伤害后果等方面陆续提出了一些甄别标准,对实践具有较强的指导性。但是2008年的《公安部关于公安机关管辖的刑事案件立案追诉标准的规定(一)》、2017年的《关于公安机关管辖的刑事案件立案追诉标准的规定(一)的补充规定》以及2013年的《关于办理寻衅滋事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》等文件中,对寻衅滋事罪,尤其是对随意殴打他人型寻衅滋事的后果要求,又进一步导致了二者的适用障碍。扫黑除恶专项斗争开展以来,一些黑恶势力犯罪行为被充分揭露出来,这些犯罪行为多表现为使用暴力殴打他人,但是到底是随意殴打他人型寻衅滋事罪还是故意伤害罪,存在一刀切或者一律从重认定为寻衅滋事罪的情况,将随意殴打他人型寻衅滋事罪和故意伤害罪的区分推到了一个更为迫切的形势面前。因此,本文围绕随意殴打他人型寻衅滋事罪和故意伤害罪的区分这个主线,在学者已经取得的研究成果的基础上,进一步对随意殴打他人型寻衅滋事罪和故意伤害罪的区分进行深入分析、全面剖析。为什么出现以上问题,笔者认为其实法条规定本身并无问题,只是法律在适用过程中出现了偏差,根本原因在于罪名认定过程中没有坚持罪责刑相适应原则、没有坚持以“法益侵害说”为判断标准。到底应该作何认定,应该综合犯罪对象、破坏社会秩序、流氓动机、犯罪手段等因素全面判断,并且在出现二者竞合的情况下,应该坚持“想象竞合犯”的处断原则。在较为复杂的聚众型犯罪中,严格按照法律构成要件,同一个案件的犯罪嫌疑人可以同时成立寻衅滋事罪和故意伤害罪。对扫黑除恶中发现的聚众犯型犯罪,由于各个嫌疑人主观故意不同,应该认定的罪名也不同。总之,本文的目的是遵循犯罪构成理论和刑事司法基本原则,为随意殴打型寻衅滋事罪和故意伤害罪的区分建立标准,为司法实践中这一难题的彻底解决提供思考。更多还原

【Abstract】 In orderto realize the function ofcriminallaw and ensure the thoroughnessandthoroughnessoffightingagainstcriminalcrimes,when criminallawisweavingthecrimegrid,itisinevitabletooverlapinsomekey areas,andtheambiguityandopennessofthecrimestructuremakethe sameactmaybeclassifiedintotwocrimestructures.Injudicialpractice,this kindofdifficultidentificationreactionistheconfusedapplicationofthe crimeofpickingquarrelsandcausingtroubleandthecrimeofintentional injury,aswellastheresultinginconsistentjudgmentstandardsanddifferent judgmentsinthesamecase.Inthenormsof China’scriminallaw,thecrimeofpickingquarrelsand causing trouble and the crime ofintentionalinjurybelong to different criminalcompositions.In terms ofjurisprudence,the legalinterests protectedbythecrimeofpickingquarrelsandcausingtroubleandthecrime ofintentionalinjuryarecrossedbutnotcompletelyconsistent.Typefromthe pointofthejudicialpractice,random beatingsstir-up-troublecrimeand intentionalinjuryoftenoccurintheprocessofapplyoverlap,especiallythe "random" beating "random" judge "intentionally hurtothers body" and "vicious" competition,causingrandom beatingsstir-up-troublecrimeand intentionalinjurytodistinguishthedifficulties.Duetodifferentpositionsand stagesofparticipation,judicialworkersand participantshave different understandingsofthesamecase,whichleadstodifferentunderstandingsof thedistinctionbetweenthecrimeofpickingquarrelsandcausingtroubleby beatingothersatwillandthecrimeofintentionalinjury.What’smore,the crimeofintentionalinjuryisalreadyacontroversialchargein China’sjudicial practice.Duetothepossibilityofpersonalinjurycausedbythevictim dueto justifiabledefense,gatheringpeopletofightandcausingtrouble,andthe similarityincriminalmeans,thecrimeofintentionalinjuryin China’sjudicial practiceisfourtimesasmanyasthecrimeofintentionalinjuryin Jpananda othercountries.Thisalsoindirectlyprovesthattherearecertaindeviationsintheidentification ofintentionalinjuryin China’sjudicialpractice,which includestheidentificationofthecasethatshouldbeidentifiedasintentional injuryasthecrimeofpickingquarrelsandcausingtroublebyrandomassault,andtheidentificationofthecrimeofpickingquarrelsandcausingtroubleby random assaultasthecrimeofintentionalinjury.Overtheyears,inorderto solve this problem,scholars have put forward some discriminating standardsfrom theaspectsoftheprotectionoflegalinterests,criminal motivation,injuryconsequences,etc.,whichcanprovideastrongguidance forpractice.Butin2008 the Mnistryof Pi ublic Scurityofthepublicsecuritye organunderthejurisdictionofthecriminalcasefilingofprosecution,the provisionsofthestandard(a)",2017" aboutthejurisdictionofthepublic securityorganoftheprovisionsofthecriminalcasefilingprosecution criterion supplementary provisions(a)and 2013 on the dealwith troublemakersexplainsomeissuesofapplicablelawcasefile,suchasfor stir-up-troublecrime,especiallyfortheconsequencesofrandom beatings stir-up-troublerequirements,andfurtherleadstotheobstacles.Anti-triadsinceputtingspecialstruggletocarryout,andsomeofthe blackevilforcecrimesarefullyexposed,thecriminalbehaviorcharacterized bytheuseofviolencebeatingothersmore,butwhatexactlyisrandom beatingstypestir-up-troublecrimeofintentionalinjury,thereisonesizefits alloridentifiedasstir-up-troublecrimeshallbegivenaheavier,optionaltype stir-up-troublecrimeofassaultandbatteryandthedistinctionbetweenthe intentionalinjurytoamoreurgentsituation.Therefore,thispaperfocuseson themainlineofthedistinctionbetweenthecrimeofpickingquarrelsand causingtroublebybeatingothersatwillandthecrimeofintentionalinjury.Basedontheresearchresultsalreadyobtainedbyscholars,theauthor furthermakesanin-depthandcomprehensiveanalysisofthedistinction betweenthecrimeofpickingquarrelsandcausingtroublebybeatingothers atwillandthecrimeofintentionalinjury.Theauthorbelievesthatthereisno problem withtheaboveissuesinfact,butthereisadeviationinthe applicationofthelaw.Thefundamentalreasonliesinthefactthatinthe process ofidentification ofcharges,the principle ofthe compatibility between criminalresponsibility and punishment and the theory of infringementoflegalinterestsarenotadheredto.Intheend,weshould makeacomprehensivejudgmentonthefactorssuchastheobjectofthe crime,thedestructionofsocialorder,themotiveofthehooligan,andthe meansofcommittingthecrime.Inthecomplexcrowdcrime,thecriminal suspectinthesamecasecanbeconvictedofboththecrimeofpickingupaquarrelandcausingtroubleandthecrimeofintentionalinjuryinstrict accordancewiththeconstitutiverequirementsofthelaw.Asforthecrimeof assemblingpeoplefoundinthecourseofeliminatingtheblackandevil,the charges should be determined differently due to the subjective and intentionaldifferencesamongthesuspects.Inshort,thepurposeofthis paperistofollowthetheoryofcriminalconstitutionandthebasicprinciples ofcriminaljustice,toestablishastandardforthedistinctionbetweenthe crimeofpickingquarrelsandcausingtroublebyrandom beatingandthe crimeofintentionalinjury,andtoprovideathinkingforthethoroughsolution ofthisdifficultprobleminjudicialpractice.更多还原