期刊文献+

论教唆犯之正犯的具体对象错误 被引量:2

The Concrete Object Mistake of Principal Offender in Abetment
下载PDF
导出
摘要 对于具体对象错误的归责———具体符合说以及法定符合说均存在缺陷,其争论源于所持的不同故意观;而且二者都过分强调了故意的认识因素,却忽视了意志因素,所以,对具体事实错误的归责应回归故意理论。而教唆犯之正犯的具体对象错误的归责也必须依据教唆犯的故意内容,同时还需结合共犯从属性。 In terms of liability imputation of concrete object mistake, both concrete accord doctrine and legally prescribed accord doctrine are deficient. Their controversy stems from different views to criminal intention; and furthermore, both excessively emphasize on the cognitive factor, but ignore the will factor of criminal intention~ So liability fixation of concrete object mistake should return to the theory of criminal intention. The liability im- putation of the concrete object mistake of principal offender in abetment must be based on the intended content of abettor and be combined with the dependency of accomplice.
作者 安军
出处 《海南大学学报(人文社会科学版)》 CSSCI 2012年第2期80-84,共5页 Journal of Hainan University (Humanities & Social Sciences)
基金 山东政法学院科研规划课题<雇佣犯罪问题研究>的中期成果
关键词 具体对象错误 具体打击错误 正犯 教唆犯 concrete object mistake concrete strike mistake principal offender abettor
  • 相关文献

参考文献3

二级参考文献37

  • 1劳东燕.公共政策与风险社会的刑法[J].中国社会科学,2007(3):126-139. 被引量:516
  • 2[德]冈特.施特拉腾韦特.《刑法总论Ⅰ-犯罪论》,杨萌译,法律出版社,2006年版.
  • 3R v. Hancock & Shankland [1986] 1 All ER 641.
  • 4R v. Moloney [ 1985 ] 1 All ER 1025.
  • 5R v. Nedrick [1986] 3 All ER 1.
  • 6R v. Woollin [ 1998 ] 4 All ER103.
  • 7Model Penal Code, § 2.02 (2) (b) (ii).
  • 8[ 1957 ] 2 All ER 412.
  • 9Andrew Halpin, Definition in the Criminal Law, Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2004, p. 78.
  • 10[1981 ] 1 All ER 961.

共引文献89

同被引文献33

引证文献2

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部