法学类本科案例式毕业论文最终稿

法学类本科案例式毕业论文写作模板。

西南科技大学本科生毕业论文 I

论共犯实行过限的认定

——以赵某等共同抢劫案为例

摘要：本文通过对“共犯”概念的分析；对“共犯过限”概念的分析；对“共犯实行过限”概念的分析，对共犯实行过限在认定方面的几种理论较深入的评析，得出共犯实行过限在认定方面的合理理论。通过对赵某等共同抢劫案的评析，得出该案在“共同抢劫”这一事实的认定上存在争议，无论是用部分犯罪共同说还是行为共同说，本案认定为“共同抢劫”实为不妥。同时用行为共同说认定本案，在违法结果上和个人责任上以及对任意共犯的认定上，都比部分犯罪共同说更趋于合理。再者，是否知情说与超出共同犯意说相比较，是否知情说更趋合理，但其在“知情不阻”的认定方面，存在不足。最后通过对共犯实行过限在认定方面问题的评析，认定本案，同时，对司法工作人员提出相关建议。

关键词：共犯； 实行过限； 认定； 部分犯罪共同说； 行为共同说

I

法学类本科案例式毕业论文写作模板。

西南科技大学本科生毕业论文 II

Determination of the limit imposed on the accomplice

———The case of Zhao a common robbery

Abstract: This article through the "accomplice" conceptual analysis; "accomplice limits" concept analysis "accomplice limits imposed" concept analysis, limit imposed on an accomplice found several theories in a more in-depth assessment of the limits imposed that an accomplice in finds reasonable theory. Analysis of a common robbery by Zhao concluded that the case was "a common robbery" on this fact finds controversial, whether it is part of the crime together say there is a common saying, in this case as "common robbery" is inappropriate. While common saying found in the case, in the law and the results of any individual responsibility as well as on the definition of complicity, are common and more reasonable than some crime. Furthermore, knowledge said that beyond the common intent that compares, the knowledge of the more reasonable, but its "knowledge no resistance" finds, there is insufficient. Final adoption of the limits imposed on an accomplice identified aspects of assessment, finds that the present case, while the judicial staff, relevant recommendations.

Key words: Accomplice； Implement the limit ； Identified； Part of the crime is common to say； Behavior common to say.

II

法学类本科案例式毕业论文写作模板。

西南科技大学本科生毕业论文 III

目 录

一、案例介绍 ··························································································································1

（一）案情简介 ··············································································································1

（二）审判意见 ··············································································································1

（三）争议焦点 ··············································································································2

二、共犯实行过限的认定 ····································································································3

（一）共犯实行过限的概述 ························································································3

1．共犯的定义 ········································································································3

2．共犯过限 ·············································································································3

3. 共犯的实行过限 ································································································4

（二）共犯实行过限的观点评析 ···············································································5

1. 从共同犯罪违法构成上评析 ··········································································5

（1）完全犯罪共同说 ···························································································5

（2）部分犯罪共同说 ···························································································5

（3）行为共同说 ····································································································6

（4）认定比较 ········································································································6

2. 从共同犯罪责任要件上评析 ··········································································8

（1）是否知情说 ····································································································8

（2）超出共同犯意说 ···························································································8

（3）认定比较 ········································································································9

三、本案认定及其思考 ········································································································9

（一）对本案的认定 ·····································································································9

1．从证据及违法行为事实上来看 ······································································9

2．从刑法理论上来看 ························································································· 10

3．从本案的量刑上看 ························································································· 11

（二）通过本案对司法实践中共犯实行过限认定的思考 ·································· 12 结 语 ······································································································································· 14 致 谢 ······································································································································· 15 参考文献································································································································· 17 III

法学类本科案例式毕业论文写作模板。

西南科技大学本科生毕业论文 IV

前 言

随着时代的发展，各种犯罪也呈现出与时俱进的态势，如今的共同犯罪，由于其在违法形态上体现出各种复杂的犯罪构成，正如前苏联著名刑法学家A.H特拉伊宁在其《犯罪构成的一般学说》中所说：“共同犯罪的学说是刑法理论最复杂的学说之一”。

如所而知，共犯过限是共同犯罪中理论的重要研究问题之一；共犯中的实行过限又是共犯过限理论中的重要研究问题之一。因而在实行过限的认定上呈现出不同的共犯理论学说，如完全犯罪共同说、部分犯罪共同说、行为共同说以及是否知情说和超出共同犯意说。当然，各种学说的最终目的都是力求能更准确的认定共犯的实行过限同时区别于共犯的本质。于此，笔者以赵某等共同抢劫案为例，具体分析该案在认定上的一些争议之处，同时提出笔者对该案的一些看法。

IV

法学类本科案例式毕业论文写作模板。

西南科技大学本科生毕业论文

一、案例介绍

（一）案情简介

犯罪行为人赵某，男，羌族，生于1997年06月19日，四川省北川羌族自治县人；王某，男，羌族，生于1996年10月22日，四川省北川羌族自治县人；刘某，男，羌族，生于1996年07月09日，四川省北川羌族自治县人。三犯罪行为人于2012年9月16日凌晨2时许因王某一朋友过生而在绵阳市“天下第一家”KTV唱歌喝酒后回到刘某正学厨的绵阳市涪城区宏杰花园靠河堤处二楼的“香颂咖啡”店内，王、赵二人饥饿，因在店内厨房内做炒饭响声过大引来该店保安即本案受害人胡天某（男，生于1950年09月21日）指责，三犯罪行为人对该保安胡某顿生不满，王、赵二人便相约拿棍棒等出去教训胡某，二人教训完后王担心胡某会报警，王便提议同时教唆赵、刘二人再去“收拾”一下胡某然后去成都，刘因胆小而未去，但在王、赵二人准备去“收拾”胡某时为赵提供一把西瓜刀。后王、赵二人便持刀伙同去“收拾”了胡某，将胡某打伤，经法医鉴定该伤系轻伤，王、赵二人便持刀伙同去“收拾”了胡某后，赵叫王先回去，王走后，赵便从胡某处抢得现金人民币120于元。事后证明，赵“收拾” 胡某的本意就是想从胡某处抢点去成都的路费。赵抢劫后，三人一起逃跑，后三人相继被公安机关抓获。经公诉机关起诉，法院对该被告三人以抢劫罪的共犯对三被告人均判处有期徒刑一年六个月，缓刑二年，并处罚金人民币2 000元。

（二）审判意见

法院审理查明：2012年9月1日23时许，被告人赵某、王某、刘某在绵阳市涪城区宏杰花园二楼“香颂咖啡”店内，因琐事与保安胡天某（男，61岁，本案被害人）争吵后，三被告人即共谋对胡天某实施抢劫后逃逸。后采用持西瓜刀威胁的方式，从胡天某处抢得现金人民币120余元逃离现场。

2012年9月16日、2012年9月29日，被告人刘某、王某、赵某分别被公安机关抓获归案。

上述事实，有以下证据证实：

1．被害人胡天某的陈述，证实其被抢劫的经过；

2．证人巩某、梁某、杨某的证言，证实了被告人赵某、王某、刘某的家庭情况；

1