摘要
对于具体对象错误的归责———具体符合说以及法定符合说均存在缺陷,其争论源于所持的不同故意观;而且二者都过分强调了故意的认识因素,却忽视了意志因素,所以,对具体事实错误的归责应回归故意理论。而教唆犯之正犯的具体对象错误的归责也必须依据教唆犯的故意内容,同时还需结合共犯从属性。
In terms of liability imputation of concrete object mistake, both concrete accord doctrine and legally prescribed accord doctrine are deficient. Their controversy stems from different views to criminal intention; and furthermore, both excessively emphasize on the cognitive factor, but ignore the will factor of criminal intention~ So liability fixation of concrete object mistake should return to the theory of criminal intention. The liability im- putation of the concrete object mistake of principal offender in abetment must be based on the intended content of abettor and be combined with the dependency of accomplice.
出处
《海南大学学报（人文社会科学版）》
CSSCI
2012年第2期80-84,共5页
Journal of Hainan University （Humanities & Social Sciences）
基金
山东政法学院科研规划课题<雇佣犯罪问题研究>的中期成果
关键词
具体对象错误
具体打击错误
正犯
教唆犯
concrete object mistake
concrete strike mistake
principal offender
abettor
