（红色字体请勿打印）此页为封皮统一装订样版.DOC

1、（红色字体请勿打印）此页为封皮统一装订样版学校代码： 学号： 分 类 号： 密级： 硕 士 学 位 论 文题 目： 教唆未遂的可罚性问题研究 兼议我国刑法第 29 条第 2 款的问题与完善 作 者： X X X 指导教师： X X X 教授 专 业： 时 间： 年 月 小初黑体3 号宋体加下划线刑法学或民商法学等 或：副教授Research on the punishment of attempted instigates- the problem and the consummation on the second paragraph of Article 29 in the Crimina

2、l Law of PRCA ThesisSubmitted in Partial Fulfillment of the RequirementFor the Masters Degree in LawBy（作者姓名汉语拼音）Supervisor:导师汉语拼音 Major: 专业Submitted time : May,2014Hainan University, Haikou,Hainan,P.R.China2014此为英文标题，字号 30 号，字体为 Times new roman 30 号,加粗注意时间修改海南大学学位论文原创性声明和使用授权说明原创性声明本人郑重声明： 所呈交的学位论文，

3、是本人在导师的指导下，独立进行研究工作所取得的成果。除文中已经注明引用的内容外，本论文不含任何其他个人或集体已经发表或撰写过的作品或成果。对本文的研究做出重要贡献的个人和集体，均已在文中以明确方式标明。本声明的法律结果由本人承担。论文作者签名： 日期： 年 月 日学位论文版权使用授权说明本人完全了解海南大学关于收集、保存、使用学位论文的规定，即：学校有权保留并向国家有关部门或机构送交论文的复印件和电子版，允许论文被查阅和借阅。学校可以为存在馆际合作关系兄弟高校用户提供文献传递服务和交换服务。本人授权海南大学可以将本学位论文的全部或部分内容编入有关数据库进行检索，可以采用影印、缩印或扫描等复制手

4、段保存和汇编本学位论文。保密论文在解密后遵守此规定。论文作者签名： 导师签名： 日期： 年 月 日 日期： 年 月 日本人已经认真阅读“CALIS 高校学位论文全文数据库发布章程 ”，同意将本人的学位论文提交“CALIS 高校学位论文全文数据库” 中全文发布，并可按“章程”中规定享受相关权益。同意论文提交后滞后：半年；一年；二年发布。论文作者签名： 导师签名： 日期： 年 月 日 日期： 年 月 日摘 要教唆未遂行为在我国是否具有可罚性，目前极具争议。缘于教唆未遂的概念与教唆犯性质之间的紧密关联性，目前我国刑法理论习惯于在教唆犯的性质下探讨这一问题，即以教唆犯从属性说或教唆犯独立性说来逻辑演绎

5、教唆未遂行为的可罚与否。但这种简单化的思维并没有为理论抑或司法实务于该问题的解决简单化，争论有愈演愈烈之势。有必要于理论上对这一问题的思考方式重新加以检讨，并合理寻求教唆未遂可罚与否的判断基准。鉴于此，本文展开了对教唆未遂可罚性问题的探讨。全文分为四个部分：第一部分是教唆未遂可罚性问题之逻辑前提的探讨，即教唆未遂的概念厘清。从目前刑法理论就教唆未遂讨论的需要、教唆未遂的规范概念、专业用语约定俗成的习惯和中外刑法学术交流的需要等方面考虑，教唆未遂的概念应当界定为“教唆者已经实施了教唆行为，但被教唆者还没有着手实行所教唆之罪” ，它包括“失败的教唆”和“无效果的教唆”两种情形。第二部分为教唆未遂可

6、罚性的肯定。将教唆犯的性质作为教唆未遂可罚性问题之前置性问题的见解，不仅在说明教唆未遂是否可罚的依据上过于形式化，在逻辑的论证上也存在显然的错误。就教唆未遂可罚与否的判断基准，应当从“有无侵害法益的危险” 、 “有无刑事政策上处罚的必要性”和“有无为处罚提供依据的条文规范”等方面寻求。可以认为我国现行刑法采取的是从属性说的立场， 刑法第 29 条第 2 款就教唆未遂的处罚规定，是从属性立场下的例外处罚。第三部分是教唆未遂可罚范围的限定。虽说教唆未遂在我国具有可罚性，但从刑法谦抑性理念和刑法第 13 条“但书”出发，其可罚的范围应有所限定。教唆未遂的可罚范围，可从教唆内容的性质和教唆未遂行为的具

7、体类型这两个方面进行具体限定：教唆未遂的处罚应限于重罪（法定最低刑为三年以上有期徒刑）的教唆未遂；当教唆者的教唆意思尚未到达被教唆者，或教唆者的教唆意思已达到被教唆者但不足以引起被教唆者产生犯罪决意的，对教唆未遂仍不应科以刑责。第四部分为刑法第 29 条第 2 款的检视。 刑法第 29 条第 2 款在立法属性上应是法律拟制。虽说第 29 条第 2 款与教唆未遂的预备犯性质有些冲突，但不应以此否认其预备犯性质。应当说， 刑法第 29 条第 2 款就教唆未遂的处罚仍有不完善之处。就目前理论于教唆未遂规定之完善的部分见解来看，于现行刑法第 29 条第 2 款本身进行修正的见解，应说是妥当的。关键词：

8、教唆未遂；教唆行为；实行行为；例外处罚；可罚范围黑体小三号，居中；1.5 倍行距，段前 0 行，段后 1 行摘要正文首行缩进 2 字符，宋体小四号；行距：多倍行距1.25；间距：段前、段后均为 0 行。“关键词”三字用黑体小三号，与摘要之间空一行。关键词之间用分号间隔，末尾不加标点，用仿宋_GB2312 字体小四号；行距：多倍行距 1.25；间距：段前、段后均为 0 行。AbstractIts highly controversial in our country if attempted instigation behaviors should be punished, no matter

9、from the criminal law theory or in the criminal judicial practice. Due to the attempted instigation concept and abettor character have the close correlation, at present our country criminal law theory used to discuss the problem in the abettors character, namely to judge from logical deduction of ab

10、ettor properties or independence of attempted instigation behaviors whether it can be punished or not. However, its seem that this simplistic thinking does not provide any method to simplify the problem for the theory of criminal law and criminal justice practice, but the debate seems to have been g

11、rowing in intensity. Therefore, it is necessary to review the theory of this issue, and seek reasonably a criterion to punish attempted instigation. Based on this consideration, this article has launched to discuss the essence of being punished of attempted instigation. There are four parts in this

12、text:The first part is the discussion of logical premise for the punishment of attempted instigation, i.e., clarifying the concept of attempted instigation. From the present theory of criminal law, it is considered from below: the needs of discussion of attempted instigation, the standard concept of

13、 attempted instigation, the habit of normative concept of professional language usage and the exchange of Chinese and foreign criminal law academic that attempted instigation concept should be defined as“ the instigator have implemented a solicitation, but the instigated person has not implemented t

14、he instigation crime“, which includes “ failed to“ and“ without the effect of abetting“ two kinds of situations. But the“ failure of the abettor“ and“ without the effect of abetting “ is the refined abstract concept of the fact type, and the analysis of specific facts type contributes to the discuss

15、ion of attempted instigations punishability.The second part is the certain of essence of punishment of attempted instigation. It should be said, the abettors character is regarded as the preposing problems insight of the attempted instigation punishability, which is too formal to illustrate the basi

16、s of attempted instigation punishable, also exist obvious error in logical argumentation. The criterion of attempted instigation punishabilty should be sought from below three sides: “if there is the risk of invading legal interest“, “if there is the necessity to punish form criminal policy” and“ if

17、 there is the basis for penalty “. Based on the three basic considerations, attempted instigation in our country obviously should be punished. But certainly attempted instigation punishability does not mean that the abettors character takes on abettor independence. From the attribute theory and Chin

18、as current criminal law, it still can be considered that the current criminal law of our country take the position of attribute theory, while on the paragraph 2, twenty-ninth in “ criminal law“ the attempted instigation penalties is an exception from attribute position.The third part is about the sc

19、ope limitation of attempted instigation punishment. Although the attempt instigation in China can be punished, but from the restraining concept in criminal law and the proviso of the penalty in thirteenth of “criminal law“, the range should be somewhat limited, namely we must insist on the position

20、of relative penalty. The attempted instigation should be specific from the nature of the content and specifically type: based on the former judgment, attempted instigation of punishment should be limited to a felony ( minimum statutory penalty of three years imprisonment ) of attempted instigation;

21、based on the latter consideration, the instigators instigation have not yet reached to the instigated person, or is the instigator of abetting means has reached to the instigated person but not enough to cause the instigated crime, the attempted instigation should not subject to criminal liability.T

22、he fourth part is the review of the second paragraph of Article 29 in the Criminal Law of PRC. From the theory analysis of attempted instigation of the punishment, the second paragraph of Article 29 in the Criminal Law of PRC should be a legal fiction in the legislative attribute, so cannot be appli

23、ed to the attempted application. Although there is some conflict between the second paragraph of Article 29 and the nature of attempted instigations preparatory crime, but should not be used to deny its preparatory crime nature, but in favor of attempted crime. It should be said, the second paragrap

24、h of Article 29 is not perfect for attempted instigation punishment: one is that the scope of punishment is not defined, against the restraining of criminal law; the two is that the principle of punishment configuration is not reasonable, against the adaptation of offence. From some opinion of the present theory of criminal law perfecting the attempted instigation regulations, the amending of the second paragraph of Article 29 in the Criminal Law of PRC should be appropriate. Key words: attempted instigation; instigation; executive conduct; exception ; punitive scope