摘要
我国立法没有笼统地采用区分制或者单一正犯体系,两种学说均有存在的空间。区分制并不完美,但和单一正犯体系相比具有相对的理论优势。我国刑法总则中存在处罚预备犯的规定,故不应当照搬实行从属性的结论,而应当将共犯从属性相应地理解为预备从属性。“被教唆的人没有犯被教唆的罪”是指被教唆者已经实施预备行为但尚未着手的情形。“被教唆者已预备未着手说”和单一正犯体系相比,不会造成处罚的不协调,和“被教唆者已着手未既遂说”相比,不会使《刑法》第29条第2款沦为注意规定,并能够妥当地处理相关理论问题。
Neither the dual system nor the unitary principle-offender system is directly supported by China’s Criminal Code, which means both theories can exist in China’s legal system. The principle and accomplice dividing system is not perfect, but it’s better than the unitary principle offender system. There is a provision to punish preparatory act in China’s Criminal Code. As a result, the accomplice-subordination theory should be interpreted as the subordination of preparatory theory. “ The instigated person has not committed the instigated crime” means the instigated person has committed the preparatory act but not yet the perpetrating act. This interpretation scheme would neither cause punishing discoordination nor make the Article 29, Section 2 of Criminal Code a provision for attention. In addition, this interpretation scheme is able to deal with relative theoretical problems.
作者
肖鹏
XIAO Peng(Beijing Institute of Technology Law School)
出处
《法学家》
CSSCI
北大核心
2022年第6期141-155,195,共16页
The Jurist
关键词
教唆犯
预备犯
共犯从属性
单一正犯体系
Instigate Crime
Preparatory Crime
Accomplice Subordination Theory
Unitary Principle Offender System
作者简介
肖鹏,法学博士,北京理工大学法学院博士后研究人员。
