张明楷刑法学讲义

张明楷刑法观点59条1、虽然习惯法不能成为刑法的渊源，但它仍然是人们在解释犯罪构成要件和判断违法性、有责性时，必须考虑的因素。

另外，当存在有利于行为人的习惯法，行为人以习惯法为根据实施行为时，可能以行为人缺乏违法性认识的可能性为由，排除犯罪的成立。

2、向公司、企业或者其他单位的工作人员〔非国家工作人员〕介绍贿赂的行为，没有被刑法规定为犯罪，所以，对这种行为只能以无罪论处。

3、还有一些疑似特殊身份但并不是真正的特殊身份的情形。

例如，刑法第140条的生产者、销售者、第159条的公司发起人、股东等。

因为，任何人都可以直接从事生产、销售活动，因而都可以成为第140条的生产者、销售者。

在此意义上，任何人都可以成为生产、销售伪劣商品罪的行为主体，并无特殊之处。

但其他特殊身份并非如此。

以贪污罪为例，并不是任何人都可以成为依法从事公务、管理或者经营国有资产，因而并非任何人都可以成为贪污罪的主体。

此外，强奸罪也是疑似身份犯，而不是真正的身份犯，因为妇女也可以成为强奸罪的正犯〔共同正犯与间接正犯〕4、单位犯罪是由单位的决策机构按照单位的决策程序决定，由直接责任人员实施的。

因此，单位内部成员未经单位决策机构批准、同意或者认可而实施犯罪的，或者单位内部成员实施与其职务活动无关的犯罪行为的，都不属于单位犯罪。

5、过失犯罪应当与过失违法行为一样，成为作为义务的根据。

既然刑法理论肯定过失违法行为可以成为作为义务的根据，那么，就没有理由否认过失犯罪可以成为作为义务的发生根据。

例如，甲的过失行为造成了乙轻伤，同时产生了生命危险时，甲故意不救助因而导致乙死亡的，成立不作为的故意杀人罪。

再如，甲的过失行为造成乙重伤，同时产生了生命危险，甲故意不救助因而导致乙死亡的，也应认定为不作为的故意杀人罪。

6、在自然意义的行为已经结束，但法益存在紧迫危险的场合，也有正当防卫的余地。

例如，对于已经安置了定时炸弹的人，可以通过防卫行为迫使其说出炸弹的位置或者解除炸弹装置。

张明楷老师系列讲座张明楷老师的论文“侵犯财产罪”专题研究之一如何理解侵犯财产罪的客体清华大学法学院教授、博士生导师张明楷……………………………………………………隐藏内容…【人民法院报编者按】财产犯罪不仅发案率高，而且危害严重。

但是，由于对财产犯罪构成要件的认识不一，对于同样的财产犯罪，不同的人民法院可能做出不同的判决，这一现象往往会影响刑罚处罚的公正性。

为此，我们邀请刑法专家张明楷教授就侵犯财产罪中的若干疑难问题发表专题文章，以供司法机关办理财产犯罪案件时参考。

具体内容包括：如何理解侵犯财产罪的客体，如何理解刑法中的“以非法占有为目的”，如何处理抢劫罪中的疑难问题，如何理解和认定“携带凶器抢夺”，如何区分盗窃罪与诈骗罪，如何理解侵占罪中的疑难问题，如何区分盗窃罪与侵占罪。

本版将连续刊载，敬请关注。

侵犯财产罪分为两大类：毁坏财物的犯罪（毁弃罪）与取得财物的犯罪（取得罪）。

根据是否转移占有，又可以将取得财物的犯罪分为转移占有的犯罪（如抢劫、抢夺、盗窃、诈骗）与不转移占有的犯罪（如侵占）。

很明显，故意毁坏财物罪与侵占罪侵犯的也是财产所有权。

问题在于：盗窃、诈骗、抢夺等财产犯罪所侵犯的客体（法益）是什么？这是认定财产犯罪必须明确的问题。

因为刑法的目的是保护法益，犯罪的本质是侵犯法益，对具体犯罪的客体理解不同，对构成要件的理解就会产生差异。

侵犯财产罪的许多问题，都与如何理解客体有关。

国外刑法理论与审判实践的通说认为，盗窃罪等罪侵犯的是他人对财产的占有（一般含有某种限制条件）。

我国刑法理论的通说认为，盗窃等罪的客体是财产的所有权整体（以下简称所有权说）。

但是，所有权说在理论上存在疑问。

（１）物权可以分为自物权与他物权；自物权是指权利人依法对自有物享有的物权，他物权是指权利人根据法律或合同的具体规定，对他人所有之物享有的物权；所有权是惟一的自物权种类，即自物权就是所有权。

根据所有权说，刑法只保护自物权，而不保护他物权。

张明楷：事后抢劫的共犯（2）-死刑辩护第⼀⼤律师⽹三、前⾏为⼈中的⼀⽅独⽴实施后⾏为案例8：甲邀约⼄为⾃⼰的盗窃望风。

甲⼊室⾏窃，⼄在门外望风，但甲在盗窃时为抗拒抓捕⽽当场对被害⼈A实施暴⼒，⼄对此并不知情。

这个案例涉及共同犯罪与犯罪构成的关系问题。

根据犯罪共同说，共同犯罪必须是数⼈共同实⾏特定的犯罪，或者说⼆⼈以上只能就完全相同的犯罪成⽴共同犯罪。

就案例8⽽⾔，或者否认⼄与甲成⽴共同犯罪，或者认为⼄与甲成⽴抢劫罪的共同犯罪，但对⼄仅科处盗窃罪的刑罚。

但是，如果否认⼄与甲成⽴共同犯罪，意味着⼄的⾏为不成⽴任何犯罪。

因为倘若单独考察⼄的⾏为，⼄并没有实施盗窃罪的实⾏⾏为，故不可能独⽴构成盗窃罪。

如果认为⼄与甲构成抢劫罪的共同犯罪，但对⼄仅科处盗窃罪的刑罚，则导致刑罚与罪名分离，即罪名是抢劫罪，⽽适⽤的是盗窃罪的法定刑。

这难以被我们接受。

根据⾏为共同说(事实共同说)，只要各参与⼈的⾏为符合犯罪构成要件即可，⽽不要求共同符合某⼀特定的犯罪构成，案例8中的⼄当然成⽴共犯，⾏为共同说具有相当的合理性，但由于我国刑法第25条所规定的共同犯罪限于“⼆⼈以上共同故意犯罪”，故采取⾏为共同说还存在⼀些障碍。

对此，我采取部分犯罪共同说：⼆⼈以上虽然共同实施了不同的犯罪，但当这些不同的犯罪之间具有重合的性质时，则在重合的限度内成⽴共同犯罪。

就案例8⽽⾔，甲的⾏为构成了事后抢劫罪。

如果否认甲与⼄成⽴共同犯罪，则意味着对⼄的⾏为不能作为犯罪处理。

其不合理性⽐较明显：假如甲在丙家仅实施了盗窃⾏为，⼄属于共犯，应受刑罚处罚；⽽甲现实上在丙家实施了更为严重的犯罪(事实上⼄的望风⾏为也为甲的事后抢劫⾏为起到了帮助作⽤)，⼄的⾏为反⽽不成⽴犯罪。

这难以被⼈接受。

或许有⼈认为，对⼄的⾏为可单独认定为盗窃罪。

但将⼄作为单独的盗窃犯处理，就要求⼄实施了盗窃罪的实⾏⾏为，⽽⼄没有实施任何实⾏⾏为。

采取部分犯罪共同说，意味着甲与⼄在盗窃罪的范围内成⽴共同犯罪；既然如此，对⼄就应以盗窃罪论处；但由于甲的⾏为成⽴事后抢劫罪，故对甲的⾏为只能认定为抢劫罪。

2012 第一学期刑法学罪刑法定原则一、罪刑法定原则的法律渊源罪刑法定原则的基本含义是，"法无明文规定不为罪"、"法无明文规定不处罚"。

一般认为，从法律规定上看，罪刑法定原则的最先来源是1215 年英王约翰签署的大宪章第39 条的规定，即"对于任何自由人，不依同一身份的适当的裁判或国家的法律，不得逮捕、监禁、剥夺领地、剥夺法的保护或放逐出境，不得采取任何方法使之破产，不得施加暴力，不得使其入狱。

"这一规定奠定了"适当的法律程序"的思想基础。

英国1628 年的《权利请愿书上1688 年的《人身保护法》也从不同角度巩固了罪刑法定主义思想。

上述思想后来在美国广为传播，美国的《权利宣言》及宪法都肯定了罪刑法定主义，并且在某些方面使罪刑法定原则具体化。

不过，现代意义上的罪刑法定原则的法律渊源是法国1789 年的《人权宣言》、1791 年的《法国宪法》与1810 年的《法国刑法典} 0 {人权宣言》第8 条规定"在绝对必要的刑罚之外不能制定法律，不依据犯罪行为前制定且颁布并付诸实施的法律，不得处罚任何人。

"这一规定确立了罪刑法定原则的基本方向。

1791 年的《法国宪法》融入了这一精神。

1810 年的《法国刑法典》第4 条进一步规定"没有在犯罪行为时以明文规定刑罚的法律，对任何人不得处以违警罪、轻罪和重罪。

"这是最早在刑法典中规定罪刑法定原则的条文，它的历史进步意义在于使罪刑法定原则从宪法中的宣言式规定转变为刑法中的实体性规定。

受1810 年《法国刑法典》的影响，大陆法系国家刑法典纷纷规定了罪刑法定原则。

罪刑法定主义推动了法治原则的形成。

德国法治国思想的源泉是启蒙时代的见解;启蒙思想家几乎无一例外地是基于封建时代罪刑擅断、滥施刑罚、国民随时可能遭受不可预测的刑罚惩罚的事实，进而为了避免这种现象，使国民获得自由而提出了种种假设、设想与理由。

刑法学备考，重点ing.论述题：一、论刑法上的罪刑法定原则（20分）答：罪刑法定原则是刑法三大基本原则之一，我国刑法第三条规定了罪刑法定原则：“法律明文规定为犯罪行为的，依照法律定罪量刑；法律没有明文规定为犯罪行为的，不得定罪处刑。

”因而，罪行法定原则的基本含义是，“法无明文规定不为罪”、“法无明文规定不处罚”。

现在一般认为，罪刑法定的思想基础主要是民主主义与尊重人权主义，或者说是民主与自由。

罪行法定原则的具体内容分为“形式的侧面”与“实质的侧面”。

形式的侧面，法律主义、禁止事后法、禁止类推解释、禁止不定（期）刑，是罪行法定原则的传统内容，被称为“形式的侧面”。

法律主义是指规定犯罪及其后果的法律必须是成文的法律；法官只能根据成文法律定罪量刑。

其具体要求是：规定犯罪及其后果的法律只能是立法机关指定的法律，故行政规章不能制定刑法；规定犯罪及其后果的法律必须由本国通用的文字表述；习惯法和判例法不得作为刑法的渊源。

禁止事后法也即禁止溯及既往，禁止溯及既往原则源于法律的本质、也是保障国民自由的要求、既是司法原则也是立法原则。

类推解释是指需要判断的具体事实与法律规定的构成要件基本相似时，将后者的法律效果适用于前者。

实质的侧面包括两个方面的内容，一是刑罚法规的明确性原则，二是刑罚法规的内容的适正的原则。

后者又包含两个方面的要求：禁止处罚不当罚的行为，禁止不均衡、残虐的刑罚。

明确性表示这样一种基本要求：规定犯罪的法律条文必须清楚明确，使人能确切了解违法行为的内容，准确地确定犯罪行为与非犯罪行为的范围，以保障该规范没有明文规定的行为不会成为该规范的适用的对象。

禁止处罚不当罚的行为，就是指刑罚法规只能将具有处罚根据或者说值得科处刑罚的行为规定为犯罪，从而限制立法权。

实现罪刑法定原则，要求适当改变观念、司法体制的合理性、合理解释刑法、正确定罪量刑。

二、论犯罪的停止形态。

答：犯罪的停止形态主要是指犯罪的既遂及犯罪的特殊形态（犯罪预备、犯罪未遂和犯罪中止）。

「名家」张明楷：财产罪的认定（讲座）来源：法青苑、平安北京、法制总队一支队财产罪的认定——张明楷教授在首都公安第190期法制教育大讲堂上的讲座大家好！很高兴有机会来到北京市公安局和大家就财产罪的认定作一个交流。

今天我主要讲三个问题，首先是把认定财产罪的基本观念与方法作为一个问题来讲，然后分别讲一讲盗窃罪与诈骗罪中的主要问题。

一、认定财产罪的基本观念与方法（一）如何理解财产犯罪的客体或保护法益这个问题很重要，每一个罪的构成要件具体该怎么去解释，实际上取决于刑法规定这个罪的目的是什么，这个目的就是客体或者保护的法益。

传统观点认为财产犯罪的客体是所有权，但我认为这个观点是比较落后的。

例如，如果认为盗窃毒品构成犯罪，那么就不能说盗窃罪保护所有权，因为谁都不可能对毒品具有所有权，连占有权都没有，但是盗窃毒品的行为明显构成盗窃罪，这就说明在没有所有权、甚至也没有占有权的情况下，也存在值得财产罪保护的法益，这就是占有。

关于占有，不是所有的占有都值得保护，这里存在一个相对关系，合法的占有都需要保护，非法的占有相对于所有权人、行使权利的人来说是不受保护的。

例如，甲盗窃了乙的财物后放在自己家中，丙又到甲家中盗窃了这个财物，我们认为丙是构成盗窃罪的，这里的丙侵犯的就不是乙的所有权了，而是甲对财物的占有；如果乙从甲家里盗走了财物，就不构成犯罪。

从宏观的角度来看，市场经济条件下的所有权与占有权分离的情况很普遍，不像计划经济时代占有与所有不分离，市场经济时代只有实现了对财物的占有后才能进一步使用、收益，比如现在债权人向债务人讨债很难，其中债权人的财物被债务人占有了之后，债务人能使用财物并收益，而债权人却无法收益，因此占有显得更重要。

例如，行为人从别人手里借款5万元，把自己的一辆奥迪小汽车质押在对方手里，约定还款期限为一周，一周后行为人无力还款，就偷偷到对方家里把车开走。

这种行为无论在哪个国家都构成盗窃罪，但是在我们国家会遇到一个问题，就是如何认定盗窃数额？是汽车的本身价值50万元吗？当然不是，这里的盗窃数额要根据行为人主观上想要获利的数额来认定，行为人盗窃这辆自己所有的小汽车的目的是要让对方损失5万元的债权，同时让自己获利5万元，因此认定盗窃数额为5万元。

张明楷：共同犯罪的认定方法张明楷：共同犯罪的认定方法一、传统认定方法的缺陷按照我国传统刑法理论，成立共同犯罪必须具备三个条件：第一，“共同犯罪的主体，必须是两个以上达到刑事责任年龄、具有刑事责任能力。

的人或者单位”；第二，“构成共同犯罪必须二人以上具有共同的犯罪行为”，“各行为人所实施的行为，必须是犯罪行为，否则不可能构成共同犯罪”；第三，“构成共同犯罪必须二人以上具有共同的犯罪故意。

”[1]显然，认定共同犯罪的传统方法是，不区分共同犯罪的不同形态，统一确定共同犯罪的成立条件；符合共同犯罪成立条件的，即认定为共同犯罪；共同犯罪中的参与人便是共犯人。

[2]这种方法有三个基本特点：一是不区分不法与责任，混合认定共同犯罪是否成立。

在上述三个条件中，第一个基本上是责任条件，第二个是违法条件，第三个又是责任条件。

[3]二是不区分正犯与狭义的共犯，整体认定共同犯罪是否成立。

上述三个条件讨论的是二人以上是否成立共同犯罪，而不是在确定正犯后，讨论哪些人成立狭义的共犯（教唆犯与帮助犯）。

三是仅判断共犯人是否实施了共同的犯罪行为，而不分别考察共犯人的行为与结果之间是否具有因果性，[4]抽象认定共同犯罪是否成立。

（一）混合认定共同犯罪的缺陷混合认定共同犯罪，表现为同时在不法与责任层面认定共同犯罪，而且先判断责任，再判断不法。

这种认定方法存在明显缺陷。

1.不利于处理没有责任的人参与共同犯罪的案件2.不利于处理他人参与本犯的不可罚的事后行为的案件不难看出，传统的认定方法之所以难以处理上述案件，一个重要原因是没有将犯罪的实体区分为不法与责任，没有认识到共同犯罪是一种不法形态，从而导致责任判断在前。

然而，责任是对不法的非难可能性，不是一种单纯的心理状态，也不是一种单纯的行为意志或者行动计划。

只有确定了不法之后，才能判断有无责任，而不能相反。

（二）整体认定共同犯罪的缺陷整体认定共同犯罪，表现为将二人以上的行为作为整体，进而判断该整体是否成立共同犯罪，并且同时确定共同犯罪的性质；得出成立共同犯罪的结论之后，对各共犯人按照该犯罪定罪，接着再考虑共犯人在共同犯罪中所起的作用，并依此量刑。

第一编刑法基础论欧阳家百（2021.03.07）第一章刑法概说司法法的指导原理是法的安定性，行政法的指导原理是合目的性。

本书认为，刑法的机能是法益保护与人权保障，行为规制机能基本上是法益保护机能的反射效果。

规范与条文并非等同总则规范基本上是裁判规范，分则规范当然也是裁判规范但大多是行为规范。

立法解释：在刑法实行过程中，立法机关对发生歧义的规定所做的解释。

法治与人治的对立表现在：统治的主体是不是人？统治的方法是否恣意？法的制定者、执行者与裁判者必须分离。

刑法条文需要明确界限的问题与具体应用法律的问题难以甚至不可能区分。

本书认为，立法机关不宜做出立法解释。

针对司法解释，本书认为，合适的做法应是，最高法院以及高级法院开庭审理案件，制作有充分理由的裁决书，以其中的判决理由及判决理由所形成的规则指导下级法院。

“解释的实质的容许范围，与实质的正当性（处罚的必要性）成正比，与法文通常语义的距离成反比。

”（前田雅英）不是限制字面含义而是在刑法规定之外附加条件的，不是缩小解释，可能是目的性限缩。

遇到不明确的规定时，应当通过明确的规定阐释不明确的部分，而不应当以某种规定不明确为由而否定明确的规定。

对用语作相对解释，实质上也是体系解释。

历史解释并不意味着只是探讨立法原意，而是要根据历史参考资料得出符合时代的结论。

当不同的解释方法得出多种结论或不能得出妥当结论时，就以目的解释来最终决定。

虽然刑法在制定时是国民意志的体现，但解释者的根本标准，是解释时的国民意志。

第二章刑罚的基本原则一般认为，从法律规定上看，罪刑法定原则的最先来源是1215年英王约翰签署的大宪章第39条的规定。

现代意义上的罪刑法定原则的法律渊源是法国1789年的《人权宣言》、1791年的法国宪法与1810年的法国刑法典。

罪刑法定原则严格意义上的思想渊源，是三权分立思想与心理强制说。

现在一般认为，罪刑法定原则的思想基础主要是民主主义与尊重人权主义，或者说是民主与自由。

张明楷_刑法的基本立场_( Zhang Mingkai _ criminal law's basicposition _ )Law of China, Vol. 1, No. 2002, No. 1The basic standpoint of criminal law in Zhang Ming's sorrow,(Beijing, China Legal Publishing House, 20020)The basic position of criminal law written by Professor ZhangMingkai is divided into eight chapters. Chapter one is the criminal law of the continental law systemIn the history of brief introduction of school debate ever seen, the old school and new school ideas, andOn this basis, the paper analyzes the theoretical status ofChinese criminal law, and draws the conclusion: whether in criminal theory or penaltyOnthe side, both to the newcriminal law perspective dominates. The second chapter through to the old and new in crimeThis paper makes a detailed review of the arguments (objectivism and subjectivism), and holds that the current criminal law in China is now under wayInclined to objectivism criminal law, and enumerated in detail the benefits of this tilt. The third chapter discusses concretelyThe two tendencies in the interpretation of constitutive elements of crime in civil law countries are discussed, namely, formThe explanation theory and the substantial explanation theory indicate that the author agrees with the theory of substantial explanation, and thinks the crime in our countryThe system of constitution determines that our country must adopt the substantial explanation theory. The fourth chapter discusses the root of illegalityAccording to the. The author probes into the existence of illegality in the foreign criminal lawAfter the theory of value and the result of non value, it expresses the view that result in the result of non value, and thinks that our countryThe present criminal law adopts the position of result non value theory. The fifth chapter is the best embodiment of various theories in Criminal JurisprudenceThrough the concrete analysis of the theory of attempted offense, the author holds that the theory of criminal law should be based on the substantive view, that is, the infringement of legal interestsThe definition of "perpetrating act" and the determination of "starting", abandoning formalism and subjectivism. The sixth chapter commentsThis paper expounds the debate on the commontheory of criminal commonaction and the theory of crime, and advocates the theory of common crime. The seventh chapter studies accomplice fromAttribute and the theory of independence of accomplice, criticize the duality of abettor and the theory of instigator independence. EighthchaptersThe basic concept of punishment is discussed, that is, the legitimate basis of penalty, the principle of sentencing and the degree of penalty.The basic concept of the book can be roughly summarized as follows:The first is objectivism's criminal theory standpoint. The expression of this position is mainly through the interpretation of the current punishmentThe amendment of several articles in the old criminal law can be interpreted reasonably from the standpoint of objectivismEmbodied. After that, the author criticizes the defects of the old criminal law which is inclined to subjectivism,In the description of the criminal law which is inclined to objectivism, the attitude of the current criminal law is highly praised, which expresses its great significanceThe standpoint of criminal jurisprudence, which emphasizes objectivism, and embarks from this standpoint, on the theory and practice of criminal law in our countryThe subjectivism of criminal law in the practice of judgmenthas been critically discussed. In addition, the book is relevantThe analysis of attempted offense and accomplice is basically based on the standpoint of objectivism criminal lawRow analysis.Zhang Mingkai: the "field" of the criminal lawLaw of China, Vol. 1, No. 2002, No. 1Indeed, in the cognizance of the crime, should we value the objective factor or the subjective factor?The knotty problems in criminal jurisprudence. From modern criminal law to the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime, the principle of responsibility and behaviorThe basic standpoint of the principle, of course, should undoubtedly consider the objectivity of the objective elementsSolution. However, insisting on objectivism is not a slogan or putting forward a view to solve itProblem solving. Because the historical view of objectivism or subjectivism is not complete, penetratingThe tail land advocates a certain factor, and often intentionally or unintentionally, with a variety of clever packaging, will be objective and subjectiveThe elements are entangled together and appear in an impartial, comprehensive and impartial manner, therefore, in the realistic criminal lawIn spite of the cautious attitude towards subjectivism in criminal law, the study of the same time, however, has been carried out at the same timeOn the analysis of many problems,But inadvertently stood on the position of subjectivism in criminal law.Most classicThe representation of the type is the criminal theory standpoint that the subjective and objective view is consistent with the theory of criminal law in ChinaIs in line with the practical attitude, while sitting on thefence between according to the need of subjectivism and objectivism standpoint.Solution. In view of the present situation of the study of criminal law in China, this paper puts forward the view of criminal theory of objectivism at the end of bigotryTo improve the theory and practice of the criminal law pragmatism in China's criminal lawHowever, it has its positive meaning.Secondly, the theory of illegality of the result non value theory. As a result, the theory of non value and the theory of priceless act is the continentHow to analyze the illegality of behavior concretely in legal system countries, that is, the so-called social harm in criminal law of our countryThe essential problem of sex, an analytical method proposed. According to the theory of priceless value of behavior, the basis of illegality lies in thatThe form of behavior itself (anti rational) and the subjective malignant behavior of the actor, that is, the evil of the behavior itself is determinedThe basis of the illegality of behavior; on the contrary, the result of non value theory holds that the basis of illegality lies in the action pairThe infringement of legal interests or the result of the threat, that is, the evil of the result of action, is the basis for judging the illegality of the act.So far, the general theory of criminal law, including China, is based on the theory of behavioral non valueZhang starts from the standpoint of the preceding (behavior) and the general person's point of view to analyze the illegality or behavior of the actSocial harmfulness. However, in recent years, the increasingly powerful result of the non value theory holds that, on the one hand, the act is worthlessIt is easy to form a violation of ethical path by taking the anti ethics as the basis of illegalityThe behavior of morality is regarded as the tendency of crime; on the other hand, in some cases, there is also an improper reduction of punishmentTherefore, this view holds that when the act is illegal or socially harmful, it should beFrom the point of view of conflict or comparison of legal interests, engaged in post (judgment) and scientific view (judge's position)To judge.The general theory of criminal law in China has always taken the essential character of crime, that is, the entity of social harmfulnessThe analysis is based on the standpoint and viewpoint similar to the theory of behavioral non value. Think about analyzingsome behavior, isn't it?When it is harmful to society, it is necessary to take into consideration the social relationship, the nature, the method and the hand of the behaviorThe consequences of the act or the possible consequences, the behavior itself, the behavior of the subjective situation, the lineA period of social situation, etc.. The most important problem is the method of judging all kinds of factors when considering behaviorIt is possible to punish certain acts that do not really have social harmfulness and need to be punished according to the situation,It is easy to lead to the tendency of conviction of subjective elements of behavior oriented people, and this tendency is the cause of our countryOne of the reasons for repeated prohibition of extorting confessions by torture in judicial practice. Therefore, it criticizes the theory of behavioral non valueThe book reviewsXiao Hua Law Volume 1 - 2002 - 1It is of practical significance to advocate the results of non value theory.Again is eclecticism (eclecticism penalty standpoint). On the purpose of penalty, the old school and theThe new view is diametrically opposite. The former advocates retribution punishment, while the latter advocates educational punishment. After that, becauseThe old school and new school between the integration, therefore, in respect of the purpose of penalty, the two is on the way to compromise. AndDoctrine is the penalty view after this compromise. It regards the theory of relative retribution as the content, and considers the justification of penaltyOn the one hand to meet the concept of justice, one must also sow the wind and reap the whirlwind, preventIf a crime is necessary and effective, it should achieve the purpose of general prevention and special prevention within the scope of retribution penalty.That is to say, the ultimate aim of the concept of punishment in conformity with the doctrine of punishment is ultimately approaching the concept of retribution penalty. It should be said that in the theory of punishmentThis concept is the inevitable conclusion of objectivism in the view of criminal theory,At the same time for our reasonIt provides a theoretical basis for the revision of China's current criminal law; at the same time, it is suitable for ouractual punishmentIt also provides an illuminating reference.Finally, we should pay more attention to the reflection and criticism of the general theory of criminal law in ChinaStand. Although this is probably not the author's original intention, it is a matter of fact and detail from the bookBy analyzing the process of argumentation and the conclusion of originality, the author believes that he should vindicate himself to the criminal lawField, I'm afraid, is not entirely the author's original intention, the original intention is through the analysis of the above problems, I hope our countryScholars can learn from the rules and methods of criminal law research, practically, not abstractly, systematicallyRather than contradict each other's point of view. Only by looking at the "preface" of the bookUnderstand.Above, the author according to his understanding of the main content of Professor Zhang's "basic position of the criminal law",A superficial analysis and understanding. Of course, the author's doubts are also difficult to conceal. First, the objective principalAs a kind of vanguard criminal law theory, justice and resultnon value theory are liberalism and individual life in criminal lawThe principle of interest protection is closely related. In other words, the basis of its existence is to emphasize individual interests and personal freedomThe supremacy of liberalism values and the constitutional system, that the criminal law is the law of interest protection, rather than social orderMaintenance method. This concept and foundation, as well as the national interest and collective embodied in the current constitution and criminal law of our countryThe criminal law is one of the meansto adjust social relationsHowto coordinate the relationship between functional views is still a big problem worthy of study. Secondly, the objective principal of criminal lawThe most obvious feature of righteousness is that the pure objectivism is advocated in the determination of illegality, that is to say, it is a certain act It is not illegal, but can only be determined by objective factors or can be reduced to objective factorsHave to add any subjective factors. As for the basis of dealing with attempted crime, subjectivism is understood as a perpetratorIt not only carries out the perpetrating act of some attempted crime, but also shows the perpetrator's offense from the act of perpetratingThe intention of crime; however, objectivism holds that the intention ofcrime is the problem considered in the responsibility and the illegality of the actSex is because the act does not cause results, but it has the risk of causing results. Precisely becauseIn order to have such objective danger, it can be said that it is illegal. Similarly, in self-defense, emergency avoidance, preparationThe same understanding can be made on crime, discontinuation of crime and other issues. Professor Zhang also agrees with this view in the book.However, this view will be very controversial whentransplanted to the criminal law in china. In accordance withThe criminal view of objectivism, accidental defense, that is, the act of infringement committed by criminal intent, is coincidentalZhang Mingkai: the basic field of the lawLaw of China, Vol. 1, No. 2002, No. 1Whenthe result of the defense, because there is no result, no value is the result of the crime prohibited by law, so,It is not illegal and should not constitute a crime. However, Professor Zhang draws lessons from Professor Hirano Ryuichi, a Japanese scholarThe author thinks that this situation still constitutes crime, but constitutes an attempted crime. But this conclusion is obviousIt is inconsistent with the results of Professor Zhang's view of non valueillegality. Because even attempted crime is alsoIs it a crime or an illegal act?. However, according to the nature of illegality is no resultHow to say that the value of understanding does not result in the result of non value behavior, how can it be said to be illegal behavior?What about it? It's puzzling. Finally, objectivism and the theory of non value of consequence are the nucleus of judging the illegality of behavior The idea of mind is the theory of infringement of legal interests, that is to say, in addition to the protection of criminal law, in the judgment of illegality of behaviorInfringement and threat of benefit,Other factors should not be considered. However, the scholars who advocated this theory abroadIn view of the illegality, that is, the judgment of social harmfulness, even advocating the implementation of the so-called legal interests infringementSay, or admit, to consider other factors besides infringementof legal interests. For example, Japan advocates the theory of infringement of legal interestsProfessor Maeda Masahide, one of the representatives of scholars, said in his latest textbook: "the doctrine of the past has always been a matter of illegality."It is a violation of the legal norms (law order). That is to say, behavior is evil, because it takes into account the actViolating the order of law. But, even if it's because it violates the law, it's illegal, but what is it?The essence of the violation of laws and regulations advocated in reality is that it will violate the internal norms of lawThe essence of violation is the violation of moral order, the violation of cultural norms, and the absence of social equalityDetermined by moral order or social equivalence. Indeed, the theory of infringement of legal rights does not mean "any subtle"The act of infringing legal interests is regarded as illegal,and it is limited to acts which should be punished from the view of the peopleWithin limits. If welook at this national perspective as "moral order" or "social equivalence",There is no substantial difference between the two views (fingering infringement and moral violation theory - the author's note)Distinguish." This conclusion, although some helpless, but actually reflects a reality, that is completeIt is impossible to explain the essence of illegality (that is, social harmfulness) by violating the legal interest.(Li Hong)[day] Maeda Masahide: General lectures on criminal law,.3 edition, 54 pages, Tokyo, University of Tokyo press conference,.}ssaoThe book reviews。