连环诈骗案件罪数分析
|
摘要
连环诈骗犯罪不同于一般的侵财犯罪,其特点在于行为人行为的环环相扣、步步为营,由多个行为把受害人引入到其圈套之中,又由多个行为最终实现行为人的犯罪目的。在连环诈骗犯罪中,涉及数行为、数罪名,行为之间、罪名之间又互相交叉包容,使得诈骗的罪数成为一个难题。在司法实践中,以犯罪构成为标准还是以犯罪目的为依据,直接关系行为人构成一罪还是数罪,进而影响量刑。由于传统罪数理论的复杂和争议较大,使得本案罪数问题更加扑朔迷离。
笔者在推导结论的过程中,遵循行为——实质罪数——处断罪数的顺序进行,即先判断行为单复数,再判断实质罪数,最后判断处断罪数的过程。结合刑法理论进行分析,笔者认为本案中黄某的六个行为构成实质三罪,其中存在牵连关系,最终应处断为两罪即构成同种数罪。但由于其中存在重复评价的因素,因此应当采用“数罪并罚从轻”的原则。
笔者认为“处断一罪”的牵连犯、吸收犯、连续犯等理论有共同的根基——罪刑相适应原则、禁止重复评价原则。这些理论的适用过程其实是上述两个原则与罪刑法定原则的价值权衡过程,即将数罪处断为一罪,实质上是罪的吸收。笔者认为,在分析罪数及处断原则时,可以采用行为——实质罪数——重复评价因素判断——处断罪数及处断原则的思维方式,得出的结论则更为精准。
本文正文共分五个部分:
第一部分是案情介绍和案件争议焦点。对黄某租车连环诈骗案争议焦点进行归纳,形成四个方面争议并提出十种不同观点;
第二部分是对黄某的行为进行单复数判断,通过对四种不同判断标准进行评述,最终笔者认为以社会行为说和构成要件说共同作为行为单复数判断标准较为妥当,根据上述标准对本案中黄某的行为进行分析,确定黄某有六个行为。
第三部分讨论本案的实质罪数问题。笔者首先对罪数判断理论进行了归纳和评述,认为构成要件标准说其他几种学说的优点,更符合我国的司法实际和习惯。在确定罪数判断标准的基础上,笔者先后对本案中黄某六个行为分别进行构成要件的判定,确定:黄某委托他人伪造居民身份证的行为不构成犯罪;黄某找某甲两次伪造国家机关证件的行为构成买卖国家机关证件罪一罪;黄某用假证件租车行为构成诈骗罪,且应当以黄某占有车辆时即构成诈骗车辆既遂;黄某伪造证件将车辆质押借款的行为构成诈骗罪;因此,黄某的六个行为分别构成:诈骗罪(租车)、买卖国家机关证件罪和诈骗罪(质押借款)三罪。
第四部分是本案的核心部分,讨论本案的处断罪数。笔者首先判断本案中黄某的六个行为之间是否具有牵连关系,通过对牵连犯理论进行分析,在判断牵连关系的标准中认为折衷说较合理,在牵连关系的客观标准中认为在构成要件说的基础上吸收直接关系说、通常性质说作为进一步的限定条件,防止牵连犯的随意扩大。对本案中黄某的六个行为进行考察,认为黄某两次买卖国家机关证件的行为与两次诈骗行为存在牵连关系,应当以诈骗罪从一重罪处断。然后笔者判断本案中黄某两次诈骗罪之间是否具有吸收关系、是否属于事后不可罚行为、是否构成连续犯。通过对吸收犯理论、事后不可罚行为理论、连续犯理论进行考察后,笔者认为,事后不可罚行为属于吸收关系的一种情形,事后不可罚行为应当界定为状态犯下不具有适法行为期待可能性的行为,可以综合平均人标准和类型人标准来认定期待可能性。黄某第二次诈骗行为不属于事后不可罚行为。接下来笔者用连续犯理论对本案进行分析后认为黄某两次诈骗犯罪不构成连续犯,而是构成同种数罪,应当数罪并罚。
第五部分是对罪数理论的梳理和升华。笔者认为牵连犯、吸收犯、连续犯等理论有共同的根基——罪刑相适应原则、禁止重复评价原则。这些理论的适用过程其实是上述两个原则与罪刑法定原则的价值权衡过程。笔者认为,禁止重复评价原则对于罪刑法定原则功能的减损,是通过罪的减损和刑的减损来实现的,本案中黄某的两次诈骗犯罪中有重复评价的部分,但不构成连续犯,应当认定为同种数罪,处罚原则是“数罪并罚从轻”,即属于刑的减损而不是罪的减损。
Serial crime is different from general property crimes .Its feature is that the actions of actors are Interlocking and they consolidate at every step .They entice the victims into the trap by a series of actions and realize their criminal purposes of actions. Serial crime touches several acts several charges .Actions and charges cross each other and tolerate each other .making the fraud crime number become a difficult issue .In the judicial practice, whether the constitution of a crime is considered as the standard or the criminal purpose is the basis is very important .It is directly related with whether the actors constitute a crime or several crimes. Further, it impacts the measurement of penalty .Since the traditional crime number theory is complicated and controversial. The quantity of crime in the case is more complicated and confusing.
In the process of conclusion deduction of the writer, he follows the order of actions -- the essence of crime number--Convicting crime number. That is to say, at first he judges the actions are singular or plural, then he judges the essence of crime number and at last he judges the convicting crime number. Combing the theory of criminal law and analyzing, the writer thinks that the six actions of Huang in the case constitute three sins among which the implicated relation lies in. At last, the result should be that two sins constitute the same .kinds of plural crimes. However, because of repeat evaluation, the principle of a combined punishment for several crimes should be taken.
The writer thinks the theories that part of a crime implicated offender, absorbable offense, continuous crime in part of a crime have the same foundations .That is the principle of the crime punishment adapts and the principle of prohibiting repeatable evaluation. The application process of the two theories are actually the value balance process of the above–mentioned two principles and the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime. That is to say, it realizes through the crime impairment, charging several crimes as a crime .The writer holds that the mindset of actions ----essence crimes number ----repeat ion evaluation factors judgment ---- convicting crime number and convicting principle can be taken so that the conclusion will be more accurate when analyzing the crime number and punishment principles.
The body of the text has 5parts:
The first part is the case introduction and case controversy focus. He induces the controversy focus towards the car rental serial fraud case of Huang, gets controversies of 4 aspects and puts forward 10 kinds of different opinions.
The second part is to judge whether the Huang actions are singular and plural. Through the comment on the 4 different judgment standards ,the writer thinks it is more .appropriate to take both social behavior theory and the constitution factors as the judgment standard of the behaviors singular and plural forms .According to the above standard, we analyze the action of Huang in the case and make sure that Huang has 6 actions .
The 3rd part talks about the essence crime number issue in the case .The write at first induces and comments the crime number judgment theory .He thinks that the advantages of the other theories conform to our justice fact and habit .On the basis of ensuring the crime number judgment standard ,the writer judge the constitutive requirements of the 6actions of Huang in the case ,making sure that: the action of entrusting others to forged identity card does not constitute crime :the action of Huang asks Jia to forge official documents twice constitutes the one crime of trading of certificates of state organs: the action of car rental with false documents constitutes fraud crime and Huang constitutes the fraud vehicle accomplished offense; The action of forging a certificate to mortgage loan constitutes the fraud crime. As a result, the six actions of Huang constitute respectively fraud crime (car rental ), trading of certificates of state organs crime and fraud crime (mortgage loan crime ) these three crimes. The 4th part is the core of the case,which talks about the crime number .The writer at first judges whether the six actions in the case have the implicated relation. Through analyzing the implicated offender theory, he thinks the eclecticism is proper .when judging the implicated offender. In the objective standard of the implicated relation ,on the basis of the constitution factors theory ,he absorb the direct relation theory and the common nature theory as the further restriction conditions to prevent the implicated offenders from expanding at random. Judging from the six actions in the case, he thinks that the actions of trading of certificates of state organs twice have implicated relation with two times fraud crime .It should be judged as the felony with the fraud crime. Then the writer judges whether the two times fraud crime has absorption relations, whether they belong to the actions that can not be punished after the events and whether they constitute the continuous offenders. The writer thinks that the actions that can not be punished belong to one situation of the absorption relation. The action should be defined as the actions without the legitimate act expected possibility of the state offender. Expected possibility can be supposed through combination of the average people standard and the type people standard .The seconds fraud of Huang does not belong to the action that can not be punished after the event .Then the writer analyses the case with, continuous crime theory and he thinks that the two times fraud does not constitute the continuous crime, but the same kinds of plural crimes. It should combine punishment for several offenses.
The 5th part is to comb out and sublime the crime theory .The writer thinks that the theories that part of a crime implicated offender, absorbable offense, and continuous crime in part of a crime have the same foundations. The application process of the two theories are actually the value balance process of the above–mentioned two principles and the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime. In the case .the two time fraud crime of Huang have the part of repeat ion judgment, but it does not constitute the continuous crime. It should be considered as the same kinds of plural crimes. The punishment principle is to lighter a combined punishment for several crimes .That belongs to the impairment of the punishment not that of the sin.
笔者在推导结论的过程中,遵循行为——实质罪数——处断罪数的顺序进行,即先判断行为单复数,再判断实质罪数,最后判断处断罪数的过程。结合刑法理论进行分析,笔者认为本案中黄某的六个行为构成实质三罪,其中存在牵连关系,最终应处断为两罪即构成同种数罪。但由于其中存在重复评价的因素,因此应当采用“数罪并罚从轻”的原则。
笔者认为“处断一罪”的牵连犯、吸收犯、连续犯等理论有共同的根基——罪刑相适应原则、禁止重复评价原则。这些理论的适用过程其实是上述两个原则与罪刑法定原则的价值权衡过程,即将数罪处断为一罪,实质上是罪的吸收。笔者认为,在分析罪数及处断原则时,可以采用行为——实质罪数——重复评价因素判断——处断罪数及处断原则的思维方式,得出的结论则更为精准。
本文正文共分五个部分:
第一部分是案情介绍和案件争议焦点。对黄某租车连环诈骗案争议焦点进行归纳,形成四个方面争议并提出十种不同观点;
第二部分是对黄某的行为进行单复数判断,通过对四种不同判断标准进行评述,最终笔者认为以社会行为说和构成要件说共同作为行为单复数判断标准较为妥当,根据上述标准对本案中黄某的行为进行分析,确定黄某有六个行为。
第三部分讨论本案的实质罪数问题。笔者首先对罪数判断理论进行了归纳和评述,认为构成要件标准说其他几种学说的优点,更符合我国的司法实际和习惯。在确定罪数判断标准的基础上,笔者先后对本案中黄某六个行为分别进行构成要件的判定,确定:黄某委托他人伪造居民身份证的行为不构成犯罪;黄某找某甲两次伪造国家机关证件的行为构成买卖国家机关证件罪一罪;黄某用假证件租车行为构成诈骗罪,且应当以黄某占有车辆时即构成诈骗车辆既遂;黄某伪造证件将车辆质押借款的行为构成诈骗罪;因此,黄某的六个行为分别构成:诈骗罪(租车)、买卖国家机关证件罪和诈骗罪(质押借款)三罪。
第四部分是本案的核心部分,讨论本案的处断罪数。笔者首先判断本案中黄某的六个行为之间是否具有牵连关系,通过对牵连犯理论进行分析,在判断牵连关系的标准中认为折衷说较合理,在牵连关系的客观标准中认为在构成要件说的基础上吸收直接关系说、通常性质说作为进一步的限定条件,防止牵连犯的随意扩大。对本案中黄某的六个行为进行考察,认为黄某两次买卖国家机关证件的行为与两次诈骗行为存在牵连关系,应当以诈骗罪从一重罪处断。然后笔者判断本案中黄某两次诈骗罪之间是否具有吸收关系、是否属于事后不可罚行为、是否构成连续犯。通过对吸收犯理论、事后不可罚行为理论、连续犯理论进行考察后,笔者认为,事后不可罚行为属于吸收关系的一种情形,事后不可罚行为应当界定为状态犯下不具有适法行为期待可能性的行为,可以综合平均人标准和类型人标准来认定期待可能性。黄某第二次诈骗行为不属于事后不可罚行为。接下来笔者用连续犯理论对本案进行分析后认为黄某两次诈骗犯罪不构成连续犯,而是构成同种数罪,应当数罪并罚。
第五部分是对罪数理论的梳理和升华。笔者认为牵连犯、吸收犯、连续犯等理论有共同的根基——罪刑相适应原则、禁止重复评价原则。这些理论的适用过程其实是上述两个原则与罪刑法定原则的价值权衡过程。笔者认为,禁止重复评价原则对于罪刑法定原则功能的减损,是通过罪的减损和刑的减损来实现的,本案中黄某的两次诈骗犯罪中有重复评价的部分,但不构成连续犯,应当认定为同种数罪,处罚原则是“数罪并罚从轻”,即属于刑的减损而不是罪的减损。
Serial crime is different from general property crimes .Its feature is that the actions of actors are Interlocking and they consolidate at every step .They entice the victims into the trap by a series of actions and realize their criminal purposes of actions. Serial crime touches several acts several charges .Actions and charges cross each other and tolerate each other .making the fraud crime number become a difficult issue .In the judicial practice, whether the constitution of a crime is considered as the standard or the criminal purpose is the basis is very important .It is directly related with whether the actors constitute a crime or several crimes. Further, it impacts the measurement of penalty .Since the traditional crime number theory is complicated and controversial. The quantity of crime in the case is more complicated and confusing.
In the process of conclusion deduction of the writer, he follows the order of actions -- the essence of crime number--Convicting crime number. That is to say, at first he judges the actions are singular or plural, then he judges the essence of crime number and at last he judges the convicting crime number. Combing the theory of criminal law and analyzing, the writer thinks that the six actions of Huang in the case constitute three sins among which the implicated relation lies in. At last, the result should be that two sins constitute the same .kinds of plural crimes. However, because of repeat evaluation, the principle of a combined punishment for several crimes should be taken.
The writer thinks the theories that part of a crime implicated offender, absorbable offense, continuous crime in part of a crime have the same foundations .That is the principle of the crime punishment adapts and the principle of prohibiting repeatable evaluation. The application process of the two theories are actually the value balance process of the above–mentioned two principles and the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime. That is to say, it realizes through the crime impairment, charging several crimes as a crime .The writer holds that the mindset of actions ----essence crimes number ----repeat ion evaluation factors judgment ---- convicting crime number and convicting principle can be taken so that the conclusion will be more accurate when analyzing the crime number and punishment principles.
The body of the text has 5parts:
The first part is the case introduction and case controversy focus. He induces the controversy focus towards the car rental serial fraud case of Huang, gets controversies of 4 aspects and puts forward 10 kinds of different opinions.
The second part is to judge whether the Huang actions are singular and plural. Through the comment on the 4 different judgment standards ,the writer thinks it is more .appropriate to take both social behavior theory and the constitution factors as the judgment standard of the behaviors singular and plural forms .According to the above standard, we analyze the action of Huang in the case and make sure that Huang has 6 actions .
The 3rd part talks about the essence crime number issue in the case .The write at first induces and comments the crime number judgment theory .He thinks that the advantages of the other theories conform to our justice fact and habit .On the basis of ensuring the crime number judgment standard ,the writer judge the constitutive requirements of the 6actions of Huang in the case ,making sure that: the action of entrusting others to forged identity card does not constitute crime :the action of Huang asks Jia to forge official documents twice constitutes the one crime of trading of certificates of state organs: the action of car rental with false documents constitutes fraud crime and Huang constitutes the fraud vehicle accomplished offense; The action of forging a certificate to mortgage loan constitutes the fraud crime. As a result, the six actions of Huang constitute respectively fraud crime (car rental ), trading of certificates of state organs crime and fraud crime (mortgage loan crime ) these three crimes. The 4th part is the core of the case,which talks about the crime number .The writer at first judges whether the six actions in the case have the implicated relation. Through analyzing the implicated offender theory, he thinks the eclecticism is proper .when judging the implicated offender. In the objective standard of the implicated relation ,on the basis of the constitution factors theory ,he absorb the direct relation theory and the common nature theory as the further restriction conditions to prevent the implicated offenders from expanding at random. Judging from the six actions in the case, he thinks that the actions of trading of certificates of state organs twice have implicated relation with two times fraud crime .It should be judged as the felony with the fraud crime. Then the writer judges whether the two times fraud crime has absorption relations, whether they belong to the actions that can not be punished after the events and whether they constitute the continuous offenders. The writer thinks that the actions that can not be punished belong to one situation of the absorption relation. The action should be defined as the actions without the legitimate act expected possibility of the state offender. Expected possibility can be supposed through combination of the average people standard and the type people standard .The seconds fraud of Huang does not belong to the action that can not be punished after the event .Then the writer analyses the case with, continuous crime theory and he thinks that the two times fraud does not constitute the continuous crime, but the same kinds of plural crimes. It should combine punishment for several offenses.
The 5th part is to comb out and sublime the crime theory .The writer thinks that the theories that part of a crime implicated offender, absorbable offense, and continuous crime in part of a crime have the same foundations. The application process of the two theories are actually the value balance process of the above–mentioned two principles and the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime. In the case .the two time fraud crime of Huang have the part of repeat ion judgment, but it does not constitute the continuous crime. It should be considered as the same kinds of plural crimes. The punishment principle is to lighter a combined punishment for several crimes .That belongs to the impairment of the punishment not that of the sin.
引文
1顾肖荣:《刑法中的一罪与数罪问题》,北京学林出版社,1986年版,第13页。
2参见[日]泷川幸辰:《犯罪论序说》(下),王泰译,载高铭暄、赵秉志主编《刑法论丛》(第4卷),法律出版社2000年版,第453页。
3参见[日]小野清一郎:《犯罪构成要件理论》,王泰译,中国人民公安大学出版社1991年版,第108页。
4张明楷:《骗取自己所有但由他人合法占有的财物构成诈骗罪》,载《人民检察》2004年第10期,第26-32页。
5参见张明楷《刑法学》,法律出版社2008年版,第374页。
6刘宪权:《我国刑法理论上的牵连犯问题研究》,载《政法论坛》,2001年1期。
7参见赵秉志主编《刑法新教程》,中国人民大学出版社2001版,第285-286页。
8参见裴广川、张春龙:《建立具有中国特色的罪数理论——罪数理论研讨会综述》,载《法制日报》1991年6月6日,第3版。
9曲新久:《论吸收犯》,载《中国法学》1992年第2期,第57-58页。
10参见裴广川、张春龙:《建立具有中国特色的罪数理论——罪数理论研讨会综述》,载《法制日报》1991年6月6日,第3版。
11刘伟:《吸收犯视野下的事后不可罚行为》,载陈兴良主编《刑事法评论》第22卷,北京大学出版社2008年版,第514页。
12参见林山田:《刑法通论》(下册),增订八版,台大法学院图书部2002年印。
13参见汉斯-海因里希-耶赛克托马斯-魏根特著《德国刑法教科书-总论》,徐久生译,中国法制出版社2001版,第897页。
14参见【日】大谷实:《刑法总论》,黎宏译,法律出版社2003年版。
15参见大谷实著《刑法总论》,黎宏译,法律出版社2003年版,第359-360页。
16吴振兴:《罪数形态论》,中国检察出版社1996年版,第132页。
17林山田:《刑法通论》,三民书局1986年版,第347页。
18古瑞华、陆敏:《事后不可罚行为初探》,《当代法学》2001年第11期。
19孙国祥:《刑法基本问题》,北京:法律出版社2007年版,第196页。
20张强:《期待可能性理论研究》。
21陈友锋:“期待可能性:刑法上地位之回顾与展望”,台湾辅仁大学1993年硕士学位论文,第192页。
22陈元凯:《期待可能性问题研究》。
23参见张明楷《刑法学》,法律出版社2008年版,第376页。
24参见【意」杜里奥·帕多瓦尼:(意大利刑法原理》,陈忠林译,中国人民大学出版社1998年9月版,第425页。
25参见胡同春《数罪并罚制度若干问题》,郑州大学2006年硕士学位论文。
26丁天球《罪刑相适应原则研究》。
27陈兴良《禁止重复评价研究》,载《法治论丛》,1993年06期。
28丁天球《罪刑相适应原则研究》。
[1]张明楷主编:《刑法学》,北京,法律出版社,2008年版。
[2]张明楷:《刑法分则的解释原理》,中国人民大学出版社2004年第1版。
[3]高铭暄、马克昌主编:《刑法学》,北京,北京大学出版社,2007年版。
[4]陈兴良主编:《刑法学》,厦门,复旦大学出版社,2003年版。
[5]孙国祥主编:《刑法学》,科学出版社,2002年版。
[1]陈兴良:《禁止重复评价研究》,载《法治论丛》,1993年06期。
[2]李勇:《如何理解刑法中的禁止重复评价原则》,载《中国审判》,2008年08期。
[3]刘宪权:《我国刑法理论上的牵连犯问题研究》,载《政法论坛》,2001年1期。
[4]裴广川、张春龙:《建立具有中国特色的罪数理论——罪数理论研讨会综述》,载《法制日报》1991年6月6日,第3版。
[5]曲新久:《论吸收犯》,载《中国法学》1992年第2期。
[6]戴有举:《诈骗罪若干实务问题研究》,载《中国刑事法杂志》,2006年04期。
[7]杨柳、熊伟:《试论诈骗罪的处分行为》,载《云南大学学报(法学版)》,2008年06期。
[8]王明辉,唐煜枫:《论刑法中重复评价的本质及其禁止.》,载《当代法学》,2007年03期。
[9]刘庆伟:《连续犯若干问题研究》,山东大学2007年硕士学位论文。
[10]刘再辉、邓多文:《论刑法体系解释方法的司法适用———兼谈合同诈骗罪与诈骗罪的区分及认定》,载《金陵法律评论》,2009年02期。
[11]张红昌:《论诈骗罪中的处分意识》,载《湖北警官学院学报》,2010年01期。
[12]殷玉谈,丁晶:《合同诈骗罪的司法认定》,载《中国刑事法杂志》,2009年01期。
[13]张强:《期待可能性理论研究》,西南政法大学2010年硕士学位论文。
[14]刘伟:《吸收犯视野下的事后不可罚行为》,载《刑事法律评论》第22卷。
[15]丁天球《罪刑相适应原则研究》,中国政法大学2008年硕士学位论文。
[16]郭震:《诈骗罪行为结构争议问题研究》,华东政法大学2008年硕士学位论文。
[17]张晓建:《论合同诈骗罪与诈骗罪的界限》,载《甘肃政法学院学报》,2000年02期。
[18]张孟民:《试论合同诈骗罪中的合同》,载《边疆经济与文化》,2005年11期。
[19]陈元凯:《期待可能性问题研究》,中国政法大学2011年硕士学位论文。
[20]汪红飞:《向制假者购买居民身份证行为的法理分析》,载《昆明理工大学学报(社会科学版)》,2010年8月第4期。
2参见[日]泷川幸辰:《犯罪论序说》(下),王泰译,载高铭暄、赵秉志主编《刑法论丛》(第4卷),法律出版社2000年版,第453页。
3参见[日]小野清一郎:《犯罪构成要件理论》,王泰译,中国人民公安大学出版社1991年版,第108页。
4张明楷:《骗取自己所有但由他人合法占有的财物构成诈骗罪》,载《人民检察》2004年第10期,第26-32页。
5参见张明楷《刑法学》,法律出版社2008年版,第374页。
6刘宪权:《我国刑法理论上的牵连犯问题研究》,载《政法论坛》,2001年1期。
7参见赵秉志主编《刑法新教程》,中国人民大学出版社2001版,第285-286页。
8参见裴广川、张春龙:《建立具有中国特色的罪数理论——罪数理论研讨会综述》,载《法制日报》1991年6月6日,第3版。
9曲新久:《论吸收犯》,载《中国法学》1992年第2期,第57-58页。
10参见裴广川、张春龙:《建立具有中国特色的罪数理论——罪数理论研讨会综述》,载《法制日报》1991年6月6日,第3版。
11刘伟:《吸收犯视野下的事后不可罚行为》,载陈兴良主编《刑事法评论》第22卷,北京大学出版社2008年版,第514页。
12参见林山田:《刑法通论》(下册),增订八版,台大法学院图书部2002年印。
13参见汉斯-海因里希-耶赛克托马斯-魏根特著《德国刑法教科书-总论》,徐久生译,中国法制出版社2001版,第897页。
14参见【日】大谷实:《刑法总论》,黎宏译,法律出版社2003年版。
15参见大谷实著《刑法总论》,黎宏译,法律出版社2003年版,第359-360页。
16吴振兴:《罪数形态论》,中国检察出版社1996年版,第132页。
17林山田:《刑法通论》,三民书局1986年版,第347页。
18古瑞华、陆敏:《事后不可罚行为初探》,《当代法学》2001年第11期。
19孙国祥:《刑法基本问题》,北京:法律出版社2007年版,第196页。
20张强:《期待可能性理论研究》。
21陈友锋:“期待可能性:刑法上地位之回顾与展望”,台湾辅仁大学1993年硕士学位论文,第192页。
22陈元凯:《期待可能性问题研究》。
23参见张明楷《刑法学》,法律出版社2008年版,第376页。
24参见【意」杜里奥·帕多瓦尼:(意大利刑法原理》,陈忠林译,中国人民大学出版社1998年9月版,第425页。
25参见胡同春《数罪并罚制度若干问题》,郑州大学2006年硕士学位论文。
26丁天球《罪刑相适应原则研究》。
27陈兴良《禁止重复评价研究》,载《法治论丛》,1993年06期。
28丁天球《罪刑相适应原则研究》。
[1]张明楷主编:《刑法学》,北京,法律出版社,2008年版。
[2]张明楷:《刑法分则的解释原理》,中国人民大学出版社2004年第1版。
[3]高铭暄、马克昌主编:《刑法学》,北京,北京大学出版社,2007年版。
[4]陈兴良主编:《刑法学》,厦门,复旦大学出版社,2003年版。
[5]孙国祥主编:《刑法学》,科学出版社,2002年版。
[1]陈兴良:《禁止重复评价研究》,载《法治论丛》,1993年06期。
[2]李勇:《如何理解刑法中的禁止重复评价原则》,载《中国审判》,2008年08期。
[3]刘宪权:《我国刑法理论上的牵连犯问题研究》,载《政法论坛》,2001年1期。
[4]裴广川、张春龙:《建立具有中国特色的罪数理论——罪数理论研讨会综述》,载《法制日报》1991年6月6日,第3版。
[5]曲新久:《论吸收犯》,载《中国法学》1992年第2期。
[6]戴有举:《诈骗罪若干实务问题研究》,载《中国刑事法杂志》,2006年04期。
[7]杨柳、熊伟:《试论诈骗罪的处分行为》,载《云南大学学报(法学版)》,2008年06期。
[8]王明辉,唐煜枫:《论刑法中重复评价的本质及其禁止.》,载《当代法学》,2007年03期。
[9]刘庆伟:《连续犯若干问题研究》,山东大学2007年硕士学位论文。
[10]刘再辉、邓多文:《论刑法体系解释方法的司法适用———兼谈合同诈骗罪与诈骗罪的区分及认定》,载《金陵法律评论》,2009年02期。
[11]张红昌:《论诈骗罪中的处分意识》,载《湖北警官学院学报》,2010年01期。
[12]殷玉谈,丁晶:《合同诈骗罪的司法认定》,载《中国刑事法杂志》,2009年01期。
[13]张强:《期待可能性理论研究》,西南政法大学2010年硕士学位论文。
[14]刘伟:《吸收犯视野下的事后不可罚行为》,载《刑事法律评论》第22卷。
[15]丁天球《罪刑相适应原则研究》,中国政法大学2008年硕士学位论文。
[16]郭震:《诈骗罪行为结构争议问题研究》,华东政法大学2008年硕士学位论文。
[17]张晓建:《论合同诈骗罪与诈骗罪的界限》,载《甘肃政法学院学报》,2000年02期。
[18]张孟民:《试论合同诈骗罪中的合同》,载《边疆经济与文化》,2005年11期。
[19]陈元凯:《期待可能性问题研究》,中国政法大学2011年硕士学位论文。
[20]汪红飞:《向制假者购买居民身份证行为的法理分析》,载《昆明理工大学学报(社会科学版)》,2010年8月第4期。
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |