%0 Journal Article
%T 传统危险犯分类理论的困境及其出路<br> The Dilemma and Outlet of the Traditional Dan-gerous Crime Classification Theory
%A 裴向东
%J Dispute Settlement
%P 795-801
%@ 2379-3104
%D 2023
%I Hans Publishing
%R 10.12677/DS.2023.93106
%X 传统危险犯分类理论将危险犯二分为抽象危险犯与具体危险犯。但是，抽象危险犯的司法认定逻辑难以完全实现控制风险与保护法益的平衡，严格责任的倾向加剧刑法的工具主义风险。而具体危险犯规制的是一种现实危险，并不能弥补抽象危险犯的不足。解决该问题的有效路径是在肯定传统危险犯分类理论的基础上加入准抽象危险犯的概念。准抽象危险犯的司法认定逻辑在肯定法益保护前置化的同时，强调司法人员结合个案将抽象危险性作为犯罪构成要素进行实质判断；强调实质性入罪标准的同时，实现刑罚对抽象型危险进行打击的预防性目的。<br />
The traditional classification theory of dangerous crime divides dangerous crime into abstract potential damage offense and concrete potential damage offense. However, the judicial identification logic of abstract dangerous crime is difficult to achieve the balance between controlling risks and protecting legal interests, and the tendency of strict liability intensifies the instrumentalist risk of criminal law. The regulation of concrete potential damage offense is a kind of realistic danger, which cannot make up for the defi-ciency of abstract dangerous crime. The effective way to solve this problem is to add the concept of quasi-abstract potential damage offense on the basis of affirming the traditional classification theo-ry of dangerous crime. While affirming the prepositional protection of legal interests, the logic of ju-dicial identification of quasi-abstract potential damage offense emphasizes that judicial personnel make substantive judgment on abstract danger as a constituent element of crime in combination with individual cases; while emphasizing the substantive standard of incrimination, the preventive purpose of punishment against abstract danger should be realized.
%K 抽象危险犯，具体危险犯，准抽象危险犯，法益保护前置化<br> Abstract Potential Damage Offense
%K Concrete Potential Damage Offense
%K Quasi-Abstract Potential Damage Offense
%K The Prepositional Protection of Legal Interests
%U http://www.hanspub.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=65229