压制反抗后临时起意取财的罪责评价

On the Criminal Charge for Taking Property Impromptu after Suppressing Resistance

《关于审理抢劫、抢夺刑事案件适用法律若干问题的意见》第8条对压制他人反抗后临时起意取财的行为人罪责评价予以了定性,但此规定缺乏进一步的法理溯源。为得出上述行为构成抢劫罪的结论,将本罪构造重塑为“被害人防御能力阙如的管辖”,或将本罪手段行为及被害人属性予以拟制评价的观点,均不足取;试图在继续犯的场域调和既有观点与司法解释间的龃龉的立场亦存在疑问。在先行行为压制被害人反抗的情形下,可凭行为人对被害人自由侵蚀状态的不解除而在“不作为”的视角下承认后续的抢劫罪之成立。立足于此,该条前、后段的不同法律后果设置并非来自被害人对取财行为的感知,而是取决于行为人在取财时对于解除被害人的被压制反抗状态是否具备结果回避可能性及是否履行作为义务。

Article 8 of The Opinion of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues over the Application of Laws in the Trials of Criminal Cases Involving Robbery or Forciable Seizure"determines the criminal charge against the perpetrator who takes the proproty impromptu after suppressing someone else's resistance,but there lacks further jurisprudential sources of such provision.In order to reach a conclusion that the above-mentioned act constitutes the crime of robbery,some views that reshape the structure of the crime as"being responsible for the shortage of victim's defensive capacity",or determine the nature of the act as a means and victim through the legal fiction,are not good enough to be adopted;the standpoint of attempting to reconcile the conflicts between established views and judicial interpretation in the field of the offence lasting for a certain time after the first act by the accused is also questionable.In the case where the prior act suppresses the victim's resistance,the subsequent robbery can only be recognized under the perspective of"omission"on basis of the conduct that the perpetrator does not release the victim from the state of eroded freedom.In this regard,the different legal consequences of the first and second paragraphs of this article are not based on the victim's perception of the act of taking the property,but on whether there is a possibility of result avoidance for the perpetrator to release the victim from the state of resistance suppressed at the time of taking the property and whether the perpetrator fulfills the obligation to act.