论具体符合说-刑法学专业论文.docxVIP

2 2 1 1 第四部分是修正的具体符合说的具体适用。首先，本文对批判具体符合说解 决打击错误的观点进行了回应；其次，提出具体符合说在解决对象错误和因果关 系错误时应分情形的阻却故意成立；最后，提出不同构成要件间事实错误在注重 法益共通性和行为共通性的同时也应注重法益主体“同一性”，并确定在一定情 形下阻却故意成立。通过这样的修正与运用，将具体符合说处理所有事实错误的 观点进行统一。 关键词：具体符合说；法益主体；对象错误；打击错误；因果关系错误 Abs Abstract In the theory of criminal law and judicial practice, mistake of fact is always important and difficult issues. Mistake of fact is that the subjective understanding is inconsistent with the objective fact. In order to resolve factual errors there are the Doctrines of Concrete Accord, the Doctrines of legally Prescribed Accord and the Doctrines of Abstract Accord. In the three theories, the Doctrines of Concrete Accord is the best way to embody the spirit of jurisprudence and the principle of responsibility, but theorists rarely do some research on Doctrines of Concrete Accord, which has led to many scholars unfamiliar with the specific connotation and the theoretical ideas of the Doctrines of Concrete Accord, even misunderstanding its viewpoint in resolving other mistake facts. Therefore, this paper investigates the Doctrines of Concrete Accord on the premise that the Doctrines of legally Prescribed Accord and the Doctrines of Abstract Accord are introduced and reviewed by defining the scope of factual errors. In addition, this paper focuses on the basis of connotation of the Doctrines of Concrete Accord and proposes a modification of the common Doctrines of Accord by introducing the Doctrines of Concrete Accord to resolve specific claims of mistake fact. At last, the modification is applied to all factual errors. The full text is divided into four parts: The first part introduces the Doctrines of Concrete Accord. When Professor Makino was solving factual errors, he started talking about the concept of the theory. Therefore, it will be able to define the scope of factual errors identified in line with the Doctrines of Concrete Accord’s scope. After determining the scope of the application, the Doctrines of legally Prescribed Accord