敲诈勒索罪中“被害人恐惧必要说”之证伪及其出路  

The Critic against “Victim’s Fear as a Necessary Element” for the Crime of Extortion and its Alternative

作　　者：蔡桂生 Cai Gui-sheng

机构地区：[1]中国人民大学刑事法律科学研究中心

出　　处：《苏州大学学报（法学版）》2019年第4期87-93,共7页Journal of Soochow University：Law Edition

摘　　要：被害人产生恐惧心理,并非成立敲诈勒索罪的必备要素。被告人实施敲诈勒索行为,会给被害人造成精神强制,但未必会给对方带来恐惧。被害人恐惧必要说,无助于归纳社会生活现象,不符合敲诈勒索条款的规范保护目的和刑法条文以被告人作为默认的对话者的表述模式。同时,它也难以说明被勒索者是法人和敲诈勒索未遂的情形。敲诈勒索行为人采用危及人身权益或其他权益的胁迫手段,侵犯的是对方转移财产的意思之形成过程不受他人强迫的自由。应当放弃"被害人恐惧必要说",改采"意思形成自由受侵犯说"。仅仅侵犯"意思形成之自由",尚无法认定为敲诈勒索罪既遂,其既遂之时点,仍然在于财产损失的发生。Among the constitutive requirement of extortion,it is not necessary that its victim was frightened by the perpetrator’s action.The extortion could cause a mental coercion in its victim,but not necessarily an emergence of his fear.The"fear"element is not helpful in summarizing the various cases in social life and does not meet the aim of the norm of extortion,either.Meanwhile,this requirement could not explain the circumstances that the victim was a juridical person and that of attempt.The menace against the personal interests and other interests infringes the"the freedom of forming of intention".It is reasonable to abandon the requirement of"fear"element or that the victim was frightened and to adopt the alternative"infringement of the freedom of forming of intention",instead.The infringement of this freedom does not mean the completion of the crime,which hinges on the emergence of the loss of property.

关 键 词：敲诈勒索罪 被害人恐惧 意思形成自由 犯罪的既遂和未遂 

分 类 号：D924[政治法律—刑法学]