论刑法上的具体危险的判断

未遂犯之危险不属于具体危险,难以用同一的方法来判断这两种不同的危险。具体危险的判断分为三阶段:首先把行为时的所有客观事实分为促使侵害结果发生的诱因与阻碍侵害结果发生的救助因素,其次判断诱因是否已经使法益陷入危急之中,再次判断救助因素的出现是否值得信赖。我国刑法学关于具体危险的认定时间过于提前,从而引发了诸多理论混乱。不能将日本刑法中的"独立燃烧说"作为我国《刑法》第114条放火罪的既遂标准。不存在所谓的"危险状态出现后行为人自动阻止侵害结果发生"问题。

Attempted offence doesn＇t belong to concrete potential damage offence, and it＇ s difficult to estimate these two different dangers with the same method. As regards the judge- ment of danger in concrete potential damage offence, the first, it divides all the objective facts of behavior into the inducements which urge the damage and the salvation factors which prevent the damage. The second, it estimates whether the inducements have plunged the special legal interests into endangerment. The third, it estimates whether the salvation factors could be expected. In Chinese criminal law, scholars usually sentence the danger in concrete potential damage offence too early, which causes many theoretical disputes. ＇ Independent combustion＇ isn＇t the accom- plished standard of arson that is prescribed by Article 114 of Criminal Law of PRC. It doesn＇ t exist the so-called problem that the offender initiatively prevents the damage after the danger has appeared.