从一件审查逮捕案件看如何区分适用刑法第267条第2款与第269条的问题

On the Difference between the Application of Section 2 of Article 267 and Article 269 of Criminal Law through a Criminal Case

案发前,程正华与程东合谋抢钱,并向程东出示过匕首,案发时,程正华亲自抢包,但未向被害人出示过匕首,程东假借问路,阻拦被害人及时抓捕程正华,后逃跑,程正华不知主犯用匕首拒捕的情况。程正华在逃跑过程中,使用随身携带的匕首抗拒抓捕。程正华没有向被害人明示或暗示凶器,仍然应认定为携带凶器抢夺,而不是刑法第269条规定的事后抢劫,程东对程正华携带凶器这一构成要件事实有认识,并且为之逃匿提供帮助,也构成抢劫罪的共犯,两人的行为,符合最高人民法院《关于审理抢劫、抢夺刑事案件适用法律若干问题的意见》①第4条规定的情况,应适用刑法第267条第2款的规定,依照抢劫罪定罪处罚。

Before the crime,Cheng Zhenghua and Cheng Dong conspired to rob someone.Cheng Zhenghua showed Cheng Dong the dagger.At the time of the crime,Cheng Zhenghua scrambled bag from the victim but did not use the dagger to threaten the victim.Under the guise of asking the way,Cheng Dong obstructed the victim from capturing Cheng Zhenghua,who ran away after the robbery.Cheng Dong did not know the situation about the principal criminal＇s resisting arrest with a dagger.In the escape process,Cheng Zhenghua resisted arrest with a dagger that was carried with him.Though Cheng Zhenghua did not use the lethal weapon explicitly or implicitly to threaten the victim,his conduct still should be considered as snatching with lethal weapon rather than as robbery after events with the provisions of Article 269 of Criminal Law.Knowing the facts constituting of Cheng Zhenghua＇s carrying lethal weapon and offering helps for his absconding,Cheng Dong＇s conduct constitutes complicity in robbery.Their conduct is in line with Supreme Court ＂Suggestion on the Using of Law on the Trialing of Rob and Loot Criminal Cases＂ Section 4.Therefore,these two men should be convicted of robbery,① according to the stipulations of article 267,section 2 of Criminal Law.