“被教唆的人没有犯被教唆的罪”之理解——兼与刘明祥教授商榷
周光权“被教唆的人没有犯被教唆的罪”之理解——兼与刘明祥教授商榷
On “If the Instigated Person Has Not Committed the Instigated Crime”
期刊名称：《法学研究》
期刊年份：
作者：周光权
单位：清华大学法学院
中文关键词：共犯;区分制;教唆未遂;实行从属性;刑法客观主义
英文关键词：accomplice offender;principal and accomplice offender system;attempted instigation;subservience;criminal objectivism
中文摘要：
如果体系性地考虑刑法总则关于共犯的规定以及分则关于拟制正犯的规定，就应该认为我国刑法对共同犯罪采用区分制而非单一正犯概念，共犯从属性说应该得到肯定。刑法第29条第2款规定的“被教唆的人没有犯被教唆的罪”，只能解释为教唆犯教唆他人犯罪，被教唆人已经着手实行犯罪，但没有达到既遂状态。如此解释既有助于维持共犯的实行从属性，坚持刑法客观主义，也不会放纵犯罪。对于教唆信息完全没有传递给被教唆人、被教唆人明确拒绝教唆、被教唆人虽接受教唆但尚未开始实施预备行为等情形，教唆行为对法益的危险仅仅停留在教唆者内心，不能成立非共同犯罪的教唆未遂。将上述教唆行为评价为教唆未遂，是对刑法第29条第2款的曲解，没有体系地解释刑法规范，有走向刑法主观主义的危险。
英文摘要：
If we insist on the rule of law, it should be admitted that Chinese Criminal Law has adopted the Principal and Accomplice Offender System rather than an Unitary Principal Offender System when systematically considering the regulations of accomplice offenders in its General Provisions and the fiction of principal offenders in its Sub Provisions. Therefore, the Theory of Subservience of Accomplice Offender should be affirmed, i. e., if the instigated person hasn't got down to commit the instigated crime, there is no attempted instigation. As to Article 29, Paragraph 2, it should only be explained as the instigated person has got down to commit the crime but not accomplished. Such interpretation helps to maintain the subservience of accomplice offender, adheres to the criminal objectivism, and will not indulge crime.If the instigated person only has done preparatory behavior, the theory of Preparatory Crime and Article 22, Paragraph 2 of Chinese Criminal Law should be applied. This case has nothing to do with the attempted instigation, so there is no need to apply Article 29, Paragraph 2, let alone the application of Article 23. As to cases that the instigated information hasn't reached the instigated person, the instigated person refuses the instigation, or the instigated person accepts the instigation but has not made any preparation for the crime, the danger of the acts of instigation to legal interests only stays in the mind of the instigator, which is not the object of criminal punishment. The opinion of explaining this kind of instigation as the attempted instigation misinterprets the concept of attempted instigation and Article 29, Paragraph 2, doesn't consider about the regulations of Chinese Criminal Law systematically, and finally takes the risk of falling into the criminal subjectivism, which is not an advisable explanatory approach.
全文阅读： 点击下载
