|
|
|
| A Study on Aggravated Offense of Attempted Crime in China |
| Chen Hongbing |
| School of Law, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Aggravated crime is a crime in which aggravating circumstances (factors) and aggravating legal penalty are stipulated on the basis of essential offense in the specific provisions of criminal law. For a long time, whether there is attempted crime of the offense aggravated, how to identify it and how to choose legal punishment has been puzzling the theory of criminal law and judicial practice. According to the traditional theory and practice of criminal law in China, aggravated offense has the form of attempted crime. At the same time, the legal punishment of aggravated offense is applicable and the punishment of lighter punishment for attempted crime. However, some scholars have questioned this. They think that the aggravating crime in China should be distinguished between constitutive elements calling for heavier punishment and rules of sentencing. The former has attempted, while the latter has not, as defined in the so-called “sentencing rule theory”. In this paper, this view conflicts with the theory of the objective attempted and is biased.In fact, whether we can reasonably identify attempted offense directly affects the severity of sentence. Therefore, this paper attempts to solve the attempted problem of aggravated offense in a package, systematically and completely analyze the types of aggravated offense, and extract common rules to deal with the attempted recognition of aggravated offense, which is also the innovation of this paper.First of all, aggregated consequential offense, it is no denying on the establishment of attempted aggregated consequential offense as long as it admits the intentional aggregated consequential offense. If there is aggravating result with basic attempted offense, no matter the perpetrator is intentional or negligent, the legal punishment of aggravated offense and the punishment of lighter punishment for attempted crime is applicable. However, if there is no aggravating result for the causes beyond volition, and the basic criminal act forms a specific, realistic and urgent danger to the legal interests of the aggravated offense, and the actor has intention to the aggravating result, although the above sentencing rules are also applicable, there should be some differences in sentencing whether the basic result occurs or not. Secondly, in the case of combined offense, the attempt of a subsequent crime shall be deemed in principle as an attempt of a joint crime. The legal punishment of aggravated offense and the punishment of lighter punishment for attempted crime is then applicable. The exception is when it is difficult to adapt to crime and punishment, the basic crime and the attempted crime of the subsequent crime can be considered as combined punishment. Thirdly, there is no room for the attempted establishment of consequential aggravated offense, aggravated offense with the role (status) of “primacy” as typical and aggravated offense with multiple persons (times). Fourthly, the definitions of “serious” and “serious circumstances” cannot be confused when determining the aggravating circumstances. The latter is an objective fact, which may not succeed for the causes beyond volition. Therefore, the possibility of establishing aggravating circumstances cannot excluded. Finally, we should make a concrete analysis of the aggravated offense by amount, the object aggravated offense, the place aggravated offense, and the means aggravated offense. When the act has formed a concrete, realistic and urgent danger to the legal interests protected by the aggravated offense, the attempt of aggravated crime can be determined and the legal punishment of aggravated offense and the punishment of lighter punishment for attempted crime are applicable.To summarize, whether the attempted aggravated offense is established or not should be judged according to the objective attempt theory. As long as the perpetrator’s subjective goal is to infringe on the legal interests of the aggravated offense, and objectively also forms a concrete, realistic and urgent danger to the legal interests of the aggravated offense, the establishment of the attempted aggravated offense should be affirmed.
|
|
Received: 16 December 2019
|
|
|
|
1 王华伟： 《数额犯未遂问题研究——从最高人民法院第62号指导性案例切入》，《法律科学（西北政法大学学报）》2019年第5期，第117-127页。
2 阮齐林： 《论盗窃罪数额犯的既遂标准》，《人民检察》2014年第19期，第10-16页。
3 张明楷： 《论升格法定刑的适用根据》，《法律适用》2015年第4期，第36-44页。
4 王志祥： 《从既遂标准的层次性理论看加重犯的既遂问题》，《法律科学（西北政法大学学报）》2011年第5期，第75-85页。
5 陆诗忠： 《结果加重犯既遂之争议问题新探》，《政治与法律》2013年第5期，第121-127页。
6 黎宏： 《论盗窃罪数额犯的未遂》，《环球法律评论》2018年第1期，第66-82页。
7 吴情树： 《论数额加重犯未遂的法定刑适用》，《法学》2017年第11期，第182-192页。
8 王志祥： 《数额加重犯基本问题研究》，《法律科学（西北政法学院学报）》2007年第4期，第132-140页。
9 张明楷： 《加重构成与量刑规则的区分》，《清华法学》2011年第5期，第7-15页。
10 周铭川： 《论数额加重犯的未遂犯》，《交大法学》2018年第3期，第122-138页。
11 王彦强： 《区分加重构成与量刑规则——罪量加重构成概念之提倡》，《现代法学》2013年第3期，第116-129页。
12 张明楷： 《简评近年来的刑事司法解释》，《清华法学》2014年第1期，第5-26页。
13 张明楷： 《刑法学》，北京：法律出版社，2016年。
14 柏浪涛： 《加重构成与量刑规则的实质区分——兼与张明楷教授商榷》，《法律科学（西北政法大学学报）》2016年第6期，第52-61页。
15 张明楷： 《绑架罪中“杀害被绑架人”研究》，《法学评论》2006年第3期，第17-24页。
16 张明楷： 《外国刑法纲要》，北京：清华大学出版社，2007年。
17 王志祥： 《结果加重犯的未遂问题新论》，《法商研究》2007年第3期，第119-129页。
18 于志刚： 《犯罪停止形态中基本犯与加重犯的关系》，《中国刑事法杂志》2009年第1期，第17-25页。
19 林亚刚： 《论结果加重犯的若干争议问题》，《法学评论》2004年第6期，第73-81页。
20 张明楷： 《简论部分的中止》，《法学杂志》2013年第4期，第19-25页。
21 肖本山： 《转化犯与结果加重犯关系辨析》，《国家检察官学院学报》2014年第5期，第91-98页。
22 张明楷： 《刑法原理》，北京：商务印书馆，2011年。
23 姜敏： 《基本犯罪未遂的结果加重犯之犯罪形态议——以强奸罪的结果加重犯为切入点》，《甘肃政法学院学报》2008年第1期，第116-119页。
24 陈洪兵： 《财产犯罪之间的界限与竞合研究》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2014年。
25 张明楷： 《绑架罪的基本问题》，《法学》2016年第4期，第118-131页。
26 周铭川： 《绑架罪情节加重犯研究》，《上海交通大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2017年第2期，第57-64页。
27 陈兴良主编： 《刑法学》，上海：复旦大学出版社，2016年。
28 王刚： 《我国受贿罪处罚标准立法评析》，《环球法律评论》2016年第1期，第130-141页。
29 段阳伟： 《受贿罪非数额情节“降格升档”之功能与重构》，《江西社会科学》2018年第1期，第177-184页。
30 林贵文： 《“轮奸”成立学说的法教义学批判与证成》，《法律科学（西北政法大学学报）》2019年第6期，第55-69页。
31 吴尚赟： 《加重处罚情节的类型化研究》，《内蒙古社会科学（汉文版）》2017年第4期，第121-130页。 |
|
|
|
2021, Vol. 51 
