事后抢劫的新解释——基于《刑法》第269条属于注意规定的立场

A New Interpretation of Subsequent Robbery:Taking Article 269 of the Criminal Law as a Noticing Provision

将事后抢劫理解为法律拟制的观点,既难以解释事后抢劫与普通抢劫的同质性,也难以解释事后抢劫的处罚范围。事后抢劫属于注意规定,本质上是针对返还请求权这一财产性利益的普通抢劫。作为事后抢劫前提的盗窃、诈骗、抢夺行为不必符合数额、次数等条件,但必须实际取得财物;盗窃、诈骗、抢夺以外的侵犯财产行为也可能产生返还请求权,可以满足事后抢劫的前提条件。“当场”不是指暴力、威胁行为与盗窃、诈骗、抢夺行为在时空上的接近性,而是指被害人一方可能当即取回财物的现场,是奠定财产性利益的具体性、现实性的要素。“为窝藏赃物、抗拒抓捕或者毁灭罪证”不是目的,而是既遂结果,应解释为行为人成功免除当场返还的义务。

Subsequent robbery has always been taken as a legal fiction,but it is difficult to explain its homogeneity with ordinary robbery and its scope of punishment.Subsequent robbery falls under the noticing provision and is essentially a form of ordinary robbery that pertains to the property interest of right of restitution.The prerequisite for subsequent robbery does not require theft,fraud,or robbery to meet conditions such as amounts or frequency,but it necessitates the actual acquisition of property.Other acts infringing upon property rights,apart from theft,fraud,or robbery,can also give rise to a right of restitution,fulfilling the conditions for subsequent robbery.The term"at the scene"does not refer to the temporal and spatial proximity between violent,threatening acts and acts of theft,fraud,or robbery,but rather denotes the possibility for the victim to reclaim the property immediately,constituting a specific and practical element in the right of restitution.The acts of"concealing stolen goods,resisting arrest,or destroying evidence"are not the purpose but rather the result of the offense,which should be interpreted as the perpetrator successfully avoiding the obligation of immediate restitution.