作者：车浩
作者介绍：北京大学法学院副教授，博士生导师
出版日期：2017年12月9日
内容提要 根据对被害人法益支配自由的不同侵扰方式,财产犯罪的各个罪名存在不同的构成要件结构。抢劫罪属于彻底压制被害人法益支配自由,敲诈勒索罪属于利用被害人法益支配自由的瑕疵。两罪构成要件结构的关键差异,在于被害人有无财产处分。财产处分自由包括反抗有用和应能反抗的双重含义。首先是指被害人的妥协和配合是行为人取财的必要条件。其次,不配合和不妥协的代价没有超出被害人的承受范围。承受范围的规范性确定,应当考虑刑法家长主义对自我决定权的制约关系,应当根据行为是否足以剥夺理性一般人的处分自由区分两罪的着手,应当根据特定被害人是否实际丧失处分自由认定两罪的既遂。无论是暴力标准,还是交付/取得的外部形象,抑或着眼于时空特征的"两个当场",都是对处分自由在经验层面的总结和归纳,是证明是否存在处分自由的客观素材。以暴力程度的轻重相举来论证两罪竞合,忽略了作为构成要件要素背景的构成要件结构,存在方法论上的疑问。
关键词 抢劫罪 敲诈勒索罪 两个当场 处分自由 被害人教义学
Abstract: According to various manners which intrude the free disposition of victims' legal interests, each accusation of the property crime has different essential elements. The crime of robbery is to completely suppress the disposal freedom of victims' legal interests, while the crime of extortion is a flaw which takes advantage of victims' free disposition. The key difference between the essential elements of the two crimes lies in whether the victim has the property or not. The freedom to dispose property contains dual meanings of resistance and the ability to resist. First of all, the compromise and cooperation of the victim are necessary conditions for actors to gain property. Secondly, the price of incoordination and intransigence does not exceed the tolerance of the victim. To ascertain the scope of tolerance, the paternalism which restricts the right to self-determination should be considered. The distinction between the two crimes should be made on the basis of whether the action is sufficient to deprive the free disposition of rational general people. Moreover, whether the specific victim actually loses the free disposition is the basis to determine the completion of the crime. The standard of violence, the delivered or acquired external image and the "two sites" focusing on the characteristics of space and time are summaries and induction of the disposal freedom at the empirical level and are also objective materials that prove whether the freedom of disposition exists. Arguments on the concurrence of the two crimes according to the severity of violence have ignored the structure of the essential elements, which are doubtful in methodology.