不作为视域下过失教唆犯的处罚依据--等置性判断标准之运用  

On the Foundation for the Punishment of Negligent Instigator from the Perspective of the Crime of Omission

作　　者：董寅辉 周飞雁 DONG Yin-hui;ZHOU Fei-yan

机构地区：[1]西南政法大学 [2]华东政法大学

出　　处：《江苏警官学院学报》2022年第5期27-33,共7页Journal of Jiangsu Police Institute

基　　金：重庆市新型犯罪研究中心规划项目“网络犯罪技术服务者的共犯退出机制研究”(项目号:22XXFZ42);西南政法大学法学院学生科研创新项目“‘反向刷单炒信’行为的刑法问题研究”(项目号:FXY2022085)。

摘　　要：囿于刑法第25条之规定,我国学界传统上否认过失教唆犯的存在。将“故意唆使他人实施过失行为”的情形以间接正犯处理的做法,在处理教唆人对危害结果明显不具有支配地位的情形时不够妥当。近来,肯定论者尝试在共犯理论框架下证成过失教唆犯的可罚性,但说理有诸多未尽之处。为兼顾法益保护与维护罪刑法定原则,应转而从不作为犯罪视角,就过失教唆犯的作为义务来源、不作为的等置性判断等问题展开研究,论证过失教唆犯的可罚性,为实践提供经济、合理的解决方案。In line with the provisions of the 25th article of criminal law, Chinese academic circles have traditionally denied the existence of negligent abettor. The practice of treating the situation of "intentionally abetting others to commit negligent acts" as indirect principal offender is not appropriate when dealing with the situation that abetting people obviously does not have a dominant position on the harm result. Recently,the positivists have tried to prove the wrongful abettor punishable under the framework of the theory of accomplice, but there are many inadequacies in their reasoning. In order to take into account the protection of legal interests and the principle of statutory punishment, we should turn to the perspective of nonfeasance as a crime, study the negligent abettor as a source of obligation, the equal judgment of omission and other issues,demonstrate the punishment of negligent abettor, and provide economic and reasonable solutions for practice.

关 键 词：过失教唆犯 共同过失 不作为 等置性 

分 类 号：D924[政治法律—刑法学]