介入因素下刑法因果关系问题的探究

　　中文摘要

　　因果关系理论不仅是刑法总论部分的难点问题，同时也是古老而常新的争论热点，而介入因素下的刑法因果关系理论，则是其中的焦点问题。研究刑法因果关系的最终目的是为了准确地定罪量刑，以回应罪刑相适应的刑法原则，从而真正地实现司法上的公平正义。在实行行为直接导致危害结果发生的单一因果关系案件中，司法工作人员可以准确地判定行为人应承担的刑事责任，但在司法实践中，单一因果关系的案件是非常少的，经常会介入被害人自己的行为、自然事件、第三人的行为或是行为人的二次行为，从而使案件复杂化。在整个刑法因果关系理论发展的过程中，刑法学者对因果关系主张的观点更是众说纷纭，莫衷一是，比较有代表性的学说有大陆法系的条件说、原因说、相当因果关系说、客观归责理论，英美法系的法律因果关系说以及我国的必然因果关系说和偶然因果关系说。因为判定实行行为与危害结果之间是否存在因果关系的标准比较混乱，至今没有科学统一的标准，导致司法实践中“多因一果”的案件很难得到准确的把握。

　　由于世界各国对刑法因果关系的理论研究还不够完备，我国也在的争论中不断借鉴和吸收国外的理论研究成果以完备我国的理论体系，所以，介入因素下的刑法因果关系问题还有很大的研究空间。本文试图通过司法实践中包含介入被害人自身特殊体质、被害人自身行为、第三人的行为、自然因素的三个典型案件，从介入因素下因果关系的概念和特征入手，梳理介入因素下刑法因果关系判定的若干学说，从而整理出一套可以作为司法实务中处理介入因素下刑法因果关系案件的参考思路，并结合介入因素下刑法因果关系的考量因素分析司法实践中的三个典型案件。最后对处理司法实务中介入因素下刑法因果关系的案件提出完善建议，以期在丰富的学术研究的同时，对司法实务中的准确定罪量刑提供判断参考，实现司法公正。

　　关键词：刑法因果关系 介入因素 中断 先行行为 危害结果。

　　Abstract

　　Causation theory is not only a difficult issue of the general provisions of criminal law,but also a topic of hot debate which is old but new in the theory of criminal law. Andwhat is more, causality in criminal laws under the intervention factors is the focalpoint of causation theory. The ultimate goal of the research of causality in criminallaws is to punish fits the crime accurately, to fit the principle of legality and to achievethe real judicial justice. In the single causality of crime, which implement behaviordirectly causes harm results, judicial functionaries can determine easily the criminalresponsibility that the perpetrator should undertake. However, the law cases aboutsingle causality of crime are few in the judicial practice, they will become more andmore complicated under the own actions of the victim, the second behavior of theperpetrator, the third person's behavior or natural events. Throughout the developmentprocess of causation theory in Chinese criminal law system, the claims of criminallaw scholars on causation theory has wide divided opinions, unable to agree. And therepresentative theories are the condition theory of civil law system, the cause theory,the correspondence of causal relationship theory and the objective imputation theory.

　　The legal causation in Anglo-American Legal System has something similar toinevitable causation theory and fortuitous causality in Chinese criminal law system.

　　Because the standard about causality between harm behavior and harm result is notclear, and the whole law system doesn't have a unified or scientific standards, it isdifficult to accurately grasp the relationship between the advance behavior andharmful consequence in cases of several causes and one effect in juridical practice.

　　Theoretical study about causation theory of all over the word is still not complete, andour country constantly absorbs and learns from foreign theoretical researchachievements to complete our theoretical system. The study about the causality incriminal laws under the intervention factors is very limited in all over the world, and itis still in its initial stages, so there is a lot of research space. This paper will start fromthe concepts of the causality in criminal laws under the intervention factors andreview some theories about the judgment of the causality in criminal laws under theintervention factors. Throughout three typical cases of the own actions of the victim,the third person's behavior and natural events in juridical practice, this paper attemptsto sort out a set of applicable reference ideas which can be used as a general judgmentto deal with the cases of the causality in criminal laws under the intervention factorsin juridical practice and a standard about judging intervention factors and interrupttheory. At last, while enriching the academic achievements, this paper will putforward a perfect suggestion about the cases of the causality in criminal laws underthe intervention factors in juridical practice to provide judgment criterions for thepunishment fits the crime in juridical practice, and maximize the function ofpunishment to achieve the real judicial justice.

　　Key words: Causality in Criminal Laws Intervention Factors InterruptThe Advance Behavior Harmful Consequence
 

　　目 录

　　一、相关案例及引发的问题 …… 2

　　（一）相关案例……2

　　1.陈某某投放危险物质案……2

　　2.赵某某等故意伤害案……2

　　3.刘某某故意杀人案……3

　　（二）由相关案例引发的争议焦点……3

　　1.陈某某投放危险物质案的争议焦点 ……3

　　2.赵某某等故意伤害案的争议焦点……4

　　3.刘某某故意杀人案的争议焦点……4

　　二、争议问题的学理分析……5

　　（一）介入因素下的刑法因果关系概念和特征……5

　　1.介入因素下的因果关系概念……5

　　2.介入因素下的因果关系特征……5

　　（二）介入因素下的刑法因果关系的若干学说……5

　　1.英美法系的诸学说……6

　　2.大陆法系的诸学说……6

　　3.我国的研究现状……7

　　（三）介入因素下刑法因果关系的考量因素……7

　　1.先行行为的原因力大小……7

　　2.介入因素的异常性大小……7

　　3.介入因素的独立程度……8

　　4.介入因素是否属于行为人的管辖范围 ……8

　　（四）不同介入类型案件的处置……8

　　1. 介入受害人自身特殊体质……8

　　2. 介入第三人行为……9

　　3.介入被害人自身的行为……10

　　4.介入自然因素……10

　　5.介入行为人的二次行为……10

　　三、案例评析 …… 11

　　（一）案例一评析……11

　　1.旧病复发是否中断投毒的先行行为与死亡结果间的因果关系……11

　　2.医生的误诊是否中断投毒的先行行为与死亡结果间的因果关系……12

　　（二）案例二评析……13

　　1.赵某某等人的先行行为导致结果发生的危险性大 ……13

　　2.介入被害人马某某泅水逃生的行为并不异常 ……13

　　3.介入因素被害人泅水行为对溺水身亡的结果作用力较小……13

　　4.介入的被害人泅水行为属于被告人的管辖范围 ……14

　　（三）案例三评析……14

　　1.刘某某的先行行为导致结果发生的危险性很大……14

　　2.介入严寒的自然因素并不异常……14

　　3.介入严寒的自然因素不具有独立性 ……14

　　4.介入的自然因素属于被告人的管辖范围 ……15

　　（四）完善建议……15

　　1.完善立法，形成统一的判定标准……15

　　2.判定依据应当多样化……15

　　结 语 …… 16

　　参考文献 …… 17

　　致 谢 …… 20