论犯罪本质的义务违反说优越于法益说  

On the Breach of Duty Theory Superior the View of Legal Interest Infringement

作　　者：牛忠志[1] 

机构地区：[1]北京师范大学刑事法律科学研究院,北京100875

出　　处：《法学论坛》2014年第1期131-136,共6页Legal Forum

基　　金：2010年国家软科学研究计划<我国学术不端行为的制度性根源与对策研究>(2010GXS5D227)的子课题<科研不端行为的刑法规制>的阶段性成果;山东科技大学博士科研启动基金的资助

摘　　要：法益说存在着不足,而义务违反说能够克服法益说的不足。如在说明行政犯、身份犯、未遂犯、危险犯和预备犯、疏忽大意犯罪等处罚的合理性时,义务违反说较之法益说具有无比的优越性。义务违反是犯罪的本体属性,而法益侵害应作为对行为人义务违反的外在衡量标尺,即犯罪本质的间接的衡量指标,它与义务违反的关系,正如树木的高与测量高度的尺子——本体与喻体的关系一样,既不相同又相互关联。＂Breach of duty＂ theory can overcome the legal interest infringement theory. For example, in the description penalties administrative offense, identity commit, attempts to commit, Dangerous and certain preparatory acts, criminal negligence, and so on, rationality, the ＂breach of duty＂ has incomparable superiority. Breach of duty is a crime ontology attributes, legal interest is a measure of the harm criminal means. Infringement on the legal interest can indirectly measure the behavior of the obligation breached. It is the relationship with the breach of duty, like the height of trees and the ruler that measure the height the rela- tionship between the body and the metaphor.

关 键 词：犯罪本质 义务违反说 法益侵害说 

分 类 号：D917[政治法律—法学]