检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:邱威[1]
出 处:《南阳师范学院学报》2010年第1期6-10,共5页Journal of Nanyang Normal University
摘 要:交通肇事后因逃逸致人死亡的案件,刑法及司法解释都作了明确规定,但在理论上对该行为性质的认定却存在较大分歧,认为因逃逸致人伤亡的案件比较复杂,有些确实应该按故意杀人罪论,刑法及司法解释规定得过于单一。事实上,不仅因逃逸致人伤亡的案件,而且因逃逸致人重伤的案件中,也有部分属于含故意犯罪的情况,正确界定交通肇事罪与故意伤害罪或故意杀人罪的界限,是公正适用法律的前提。The criminal law and its relevant judicial interpretations have made strict stipulations concerning cases of hit-and-run traffic offences resulting in death. However, theoretically, there are big differences over the identification of the nature of such criminal acts, with some believing that such hit-and-run cases resulting in casualties are all too complicated to suit the overly simple provisions of criminal law and judicial interpretations and that certain offences should be charged with intentional homicide in faith. In practice, some cases with not only civilian casualties but also severe injuries caused resulting from hit-and-run traffic offences should be identified as intentional homicide. Therefore, correctly defining and distinguishing the crime of traffic offences, the crime of willful and malicious injury and the crime of intentional' homicide are the prerequisite for the impartial application of law.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.3