牵连犯认定标准及处断原则探究  

Exploration of the Determination Criteria and Judgement Principles for the Implicated Offense

作　　者：田颖 Tian Ying(College of Political Science and Law,Capital Normal University,Beijing 100089,China)

机构地区：[1]首都师范大学政法学院,北京100089

出　　处：《铁道警察学院学报》2022年第4期85-90,共6页Journal of Railway Police College

摘　　要：对于牵连犯的认定标准和处断原则,我国刑法理论界始终没有形成统一看法,这也使得司法实践中就这一问题产生了诸多分歧。在对牵连关系的界定判断上,“主观说”“客观说”“包容说”等都具有偏颇之处,附条件的“因果关系说”更符合司法实务中对牵连犯的传统认识,同时也可以使目前的执法标准保持一致。在处断原则上,传统的从一重处断原则无法体现罪责刑相一致的原则,对于法律及司法解释未明确的牵连现象,公诉机关应当按数罪一并起诉,审判机关应当释明从一重处断的量刑理由。牵连犯与想象竞合犯的区分关键在于犯罪行为数量的单复,与吸收犯的区分关键在于数行为间关系的含义以及数行为触犯的罪名性质。As to the determination criteria and judgement principles in the case of implicated offense,the academia of criminal law in China not yet come to an agreement,which leads to different interpretations in judicial practice.In the matter of identifying the implications,subjectivism,objectivism and tolerance theory are all biased,while the conditional reasoning and causation is more applicable to the traditional definition of implicated offenses in judicial practice,and consistent with the current law enforcement rules.In the matter of judgement principles,the original principle of a severer punishment for concurrent crimes conflicts with the principle of consistency between crime and punishment.In the case of implications for which both the legal and judicial interpretations are unclear,the public prosecutors should sue for concurrent crimes,and the judiciary should give the reason for a severer penalty.The implicated offense distinguishes itself from the imaginative joiner of offense by the number of criminal acts,and from the absorbable offence by the connection between the acts and the accusations.

关 键 词：牵连犯 牵连关系 处断原则 

分 类 号：D924[政治法律—刑法学]