【作者】 张婷；

【导师】 卢有学；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 刑法学， 2015， 硕士

【摘要】 在刑法理论和司法实践中,事实认识错误一直都是重要又疑难的问题。事实认识错误是指主观认识与客观事实不一致的情形,而解决事实错误的学说包括具体符合说、法定符合说和抽象符合说。在三学说中,具体符合说是最能体现法理精神和责任主义原则的,然而理论界很少对具体符合说作专门研究,导致很多学者对具体符合说的内涵和理论主张存在模糊理解,甚至对具体符合说在解决事实错误时的观点产生误解等。因此本文通过界定事实错误范围来确定具体符合说范围,并以对法定符合说和抽象符合说进行述评为前提,引出具体符合说。此外,本文侧重以具体符合说本体内涵为基础,通过对具体符合说在解决事实错误时的具体主张的介绍,指出其存在的缺陷并提出修正,最后将修正的观点适用于全部的事实错误中。全文分为四个部分:第一个部分引出具体符合说。由于牧野英一教授是在解决事实错误时提出了具体符合说的概念,因此通过界定事实错误的范围就能认定具体符合说的适用范围。在确定适用范围之后,本文对法定符合说和抽象符合说进行了介绍和评价,指出两者无法通过修正来避免其理论缺陷进而引出具体符合说。通过对具体符合说理论基础和故意理念的介绍,为后文的通说主张与修正奠定了坚实的理论前提。第二部分阐述具体符合说的主张及缺陷。本文通过介绍具体符合说的“法益主体同一性”原则,解决同一构成要件内事实错误以及不同构成要件间事实错误的处理原则,提出过于注重“法益主体同一性”原则会放纵犯罪,并且提出若对同一构成要件内的事实错误与不同构成要件间事实错误适用于不同标准,会造成具体符合说理论本身的混乱和矛盾等观点。第三部分提出对具体符合说的修正。本文通过三方面对具体符合说进行修正,第一个方面是对法益主体进行明晰界定,即将法益主体从对物的占有主体扩大到对物存在稳定持有和在一定范围内控制的占有行为主体。第二个方面是分别确定取得型财产犯罪和毁坏型财产犯罪是否注重法益主体“个体化”;第三个方面是提出了将具体符合说的故意理念适用于全部事实错误中的观点。第四部分是修正的具体符合说的具体适用。首先,本文对批判具体符合说解决打击错误的观点进行了回应;其次,提出具体符合说在解决对象错误和因果关系错误时应分情形的阻却故意成立;最后,提出不同构成要件间事实错误在注重法益共通性和行为共通性的同时也应注重法益主体“同一性”,并确定在一定情形下阻却故意成立。通过这样的修正与运用,将具体符合说处理所有事实错误的观点进行统一。更多还原

【Abstract】 In the theory of criminal law and judicial practice, mistake of fact is always important and difficult issues. Mistake of fact is that the subjective understanding is inconsistent with the objective fact. In order to resolve factual errors there are the Doctrines of Concrete Accord, the Doctrines of legally Prescribed Accord and the Doctrines of Abstract Accord. In the three theories, the Doctrines of Concrete Accord is the best way to embody the spirit of jurisprudence and the principle of responsibility, but theorists rarely do some research on Doctrines of Concrete Accord, which has led to many scholars unfamiliar with the specific connotation and the theoretical ideas of the Doctrines of Concrete Accord, even misunderstanding its viewpoint in resolving other mistake facts. Therefore, this paper investigates the Doctrines of Concrete Accord on the premise that the Doctrines of legally Prescribed Accord and the Doctrines of Abstract Accord are introduced and reviewed by defining the scope of factual errors. In addition, this paper focuses on the basis of connotation of the Doctrines of Concrete Accord and proposes a modification of the common Doctrines of Accord by introducing the Doctrines of Concrete Accord to resolve specific claims of mistake fact. At last, the modification is applied to all factual errors. The full text is divided into four parts:The first part introduces the Doctrines of Concrete Accord. When Professor Makino was solving factual errors, he started talking about the concept of the theory. Therefore, it will be able to define the scope of factual errors identified in line with the Doctrines of Concrete Accord’s scope. After determining the scope of the application, the Doctrines of legally Prescribed Accord and the Doctrines of Abstract Accord were introduced and evaluated. It is noted that both two cannot avoid theoretical errors by modifying and then the Doctrines of Concrete Accord is introduced. Through the introduction of theoretical basis and deliberately proposition of the Doctrines of Concrete Accord, there is a solid theoretical premise.The second part describes the specific claims and defects in Doctrines of Concrete Accord. This paper describes the principles of solving factual errors based on the same constituent elements and factual errors based on the different constituent elements by the “Equivalence of Legal Interest” principle. It is indicated that if we put forward too much emphasis on “Equivalence of Legal Interest” principle, it will indulge crime. If we apply the different principles between the same elements factual errors and the different elements factual errors, it will cause chaos theory itself and contradictions.The third section presents the specific amendments on Doctrines of Concrete Accord. On one hand the legal interest subject will be clearly defined. The definition of the legal interest subject is extended from subject of possession to the subject who holds the things steadily and has a range of control. It is proposed that the property crime of obtained type don’t need to focus on “the legal interest subject of individualization”, and as for the property crime of destruction type, it is necessary to determine by cases whether focus on "the legal interest subject of individualization" and other viewpoints. On the other hand,the intentional concept of the Doctrines of Concrete Accord is proposed and is applied to all of the factual errors.The fourth section is that point of the amendment is applied to all the factual errors. Firstly, responding to the point of view criticizing the Doctrines of Concrete Accord used to solve the attack errors. Secondly, it is proposed that intentional establishment of elimination should be identified by cases when the Doctrines of Concrete Accord resolves object errors and causal errors. Finally, it is noted that the factual errors based on the different constituent elements focus on commonality of legal interest and commonality of behavior but also should focus on “legal interest subject identity”, in addition it is necessary to make sure intentional establishment of elimination in certain circumstances. Through the use of such an amendment, the viewpoints of Doctrines of Concrete Accord dealing with all the specific factual errors are unified.更多还原