教唆故意的基本构造及具体展开

Basic Structure and Concrete Expansion of Instigation Intention

围绕教唆故意的成立是否需要教唆者对构成要件结果具有认识,存在单一故意说与双重故意说的争论,其中双重故意说更具合理性。按照双重故意说的推论,在结果犯的场合,未遂教唆不具有可罚性,因其欠缺教唆故意。在具体危险犯及实行未终了的抽象危险犯的场合,教唆者如果对具体危险的不出现或抽象危险犯中实行不可能终了具有确信,则不成立教唆故意。在目的犯教唆的场合,对于与法益有关的目的,教唆者需要认识到实行者具有该目的及本身具有该目的方成立教唆犯。对于与法益无关的目的,教唆者只需要对实行者具有特定目的有认识就可成立教唆故意。在有故意无目的的工具场合,不应当把实行者具有特定目的的认识作为教唆者教唆故意的内容。

Centering on whether instigation intention including cognition of constitutive result of practicing offender,there are two types of controversies in this issue:single intention and double intention.Based on principle of legal interest and restriction of punishment scope,considering that all punitive offenders should have legal interest infringement and taking compromise provoking theory as the foundation of instigator punishment,the double intention theory is more reasonable.For consequential offense and concrete potential damage offense and uncompleted abstract potential damage offence,there is not penalization for the attempted solicitation.About the purpose related to legal interest,instigators should have purpose and cognition of perpetrator purpose.About the purpose unrelated to legal interest,instigators only need to have cognition of perpetrator purpose without need to have purpose.In the situation of intentional and no purpose tool,cognition of perpetrator purpose should not be taken as content of instigation intention.