【摘要】：正如有學(xué)者所言,任何一起刑事案件可能沒有法定量刑情節(jié),但一般不可能沒有酌定量刑情節(jié)。隨著刑罰理論和量刑實(shí)踐的不斷發(fā)展,酌定量刑情節(jié)在量刑中發(fā)揮著日趨重要的作用。酌定量刑情節(jié)的存在 和正確適用不僅有助于刑罰目的的實(shí)現(xiàn),更是實(shí)現(xiàn)刑罰公正和刑罰個(gè)別化的必然要求。長(zhǎng)期以來,鑒于酌定量刑情節(jié)的“酌定性”特征,理論界往往認(rèn)為其本身不能或不應(yīng)該被規(guī)范,否則就失去了存在的價(jià)值和意義,因此對(duì)酌定量刑情節(jié)規(guī)范適用的研究往往望而卻步,個(gè)別學(xué)者甚至對(duì)酌定量刑情節(jié)存在的“正當(dāng)性”提出質(zhì)疑,認(rèn)為其違反了罪刑法定的刑法基本原則。2013年12月,最高人民法院下發(fā)了《關(guān)于實(shí)施量刑規(guī)范化工作的通知》和《關(guān)于常見犯罪的量刑指導(dǎo)意見》,決定從2014年1月1日起正式實(shí)施量刑規(guī)范化工作。其中,規(guī)范酌定量刑情節(jié)適用成為量刑規(guī)范化工作的重要內(nèi)容之一,酌定量刑情節(jié)被正式納入規(guī)范適用的軌道。本文嘗試以2010年最高人民法院制定的《人民法院量刑指導(dǎo)意見(試行)》(下稱《量刑指導(dǎo)意見》)和《人民法院量刑程序意見(試行)》(下稱《量刑程序意見》)為指導(dǎo),辨析論證了酌定量刑情節(jié)的概念特征、法理依據(jù)以及適用問題和影響力；并在對(duì)司法實(shí)踐中常見酌定量刑情節(jié)分類梳理的基礎(chǔ)上,從實(shí)體和程序兩個(gè)方面提出了酌定量刑情節(jié)規(guī)范適用的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和要求；最后對(duì)其規(guī)范路徑提出完善建議,為立法機(jī)關(guān)和司法機(jī)關(guān)提供參考。本文分為導(dǎo)言和正文兩部分。根據(jù)內(nèi)容布局,正文可分為以下六個(gè)部分。 第一章為酌定量刑情節(jié)規(guī)范適用概述,共分為三節(jié)。鑒于酌定量刑情節(jié)在量刑中的重要地位和作用,對(duì)其規(guī)范不僅是量刑規(guī)范化改革的重要內(nèi)容,更是實(shí)現(xiàn)司法公正的關(guān)鍵環(huán)節(jié)。第一節(jié)介紹我國(guó)量刑規(guī)范化改革的背景與意義。梳理介紹探索與實(shí)踐的各個(gè)階段，在此基礎(chǔ)上論證提出，量刑規(guī)范化必然離不開對(duì)酌定量刑情節(jié)適用的規(guī)范。指出酌定量刑情節(jié)規(guī)范適用的目標(biāo)定位是為法官正確行使裁量權(quán)提供依據(jù)和指引，其意義在于能夠以看得見的方式實(shí)現(xiàn)司法公正，抑制人為因素對(duì)量刑活動(dòng)的干擾，實(shí)現(xiàn)量刑法律效果與社會(huì)效果的統(tǒng)一。第二節(jié)界定酌定量刑情節(jié)的概念和特征。從酌定量刑情節(jié)的概念紛爭(zhēng)出發(fā)，通過對(duì)刑法中“情節(jié)”、“量刑情節(jié)”概念的辨析，結(jié)合學(xué)界通說和《量刑指導(dǎo)意見》相關(guān)規(guī)定，重新將“酌定量刑情節(jié)”定義為：犯罪構(gòu)成事實(shí)情節(jié)和法定量刑情節(jié)以外的，由法官在量刑時(shí)予以酌情認(rèn)定并對(duì)量刑結(jié)果產(chǎn)生影響的各種案件情節(jié)，提出酌定量刑情節(jié)具有非法定性、豐富性、具體性和變化性的特征。第三節(jié)為國(guó)外酌定量刑情節(jié)規(guī)范適用的介紹與啟示。通過比較借鑒英美法系和大陸法系國(guó)家和地區(qū)在酌定量刑情節(jié)規(guī)范適用方面的發(fā)展和經(jīng)驗(yàn)，提出酌定量刑情節(jié)的規(guī)范適用符合世界量刑制度的發(fā)展趨勢(shì)、法官的自由裁量權(quán)應(yīng)當(dāng)受到尊重和必要限制的觀點(diǎn)。 第二章為酌定量刑情節(jié)的理論依據(jù)和適用問題，共分為三節(jié)。由于法律對(duì)酌定量刑情節(jié)的內(nèi)容和影響力沒有具體規(guī)定，理論界又缺乏統(tǒng)一認(rèn)識(shí)，導(dǎo)致在司法實(shí)踐中法官不敢適用、過度適用以及選擇性適用的問題頻頻出現(xiàn)，并成為導(dǎo)致量刑不公的重要原因。從理論上說明和解決這些問題，對(duì)于促進(jìn)酌定量刑情節(jié)的規(guī)范適用具有非常重要的意義。第一節(jié)分析闡明酌定量刑情節(jié)的理論依據(jù)。主要解決酌定量刑情節(jié)之所以存在并適用的理論問題，認(rèn)為酌定量刑情節(jié)能夠滿足刑罰的目的及恢復(fù)性司法理論的需要，是罪刑相適應(yīng)原則的要求和原則性與靈活性相統(tǒng)一的結(jié)果，也是刑罰個(gè)別化實(shí)現(xiàn)的依據(jù)。第二節(jié)論述酌定量刑情節(jié)的影響力。從酌定量刑情節(jié)“酌定性”的性質(zhì)出發(fā)，提出其對(duì)量刑具有從重、從輕和減輕處罰的影響力，但不具有免除處罰的作用，也不存在“應(yīng)當(dāng)型”情節(jié)。第三節(jié)歸納分析酌定量刑情節(jié)實(shí)踐適用中存在的主要問題。某些酌定量刑情節(jié)已經(jīng)成為影響量刑的關(guān)鍵因素，如退贓、退賠、賠償經(jīng)濟(jì)損失等酌定量刑情節(jié)的影響力有時(shí)甚至超越了自首、坦白等法定量刑情節(jié)，然而提取標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不明確、法官裁量權(quán)過大、選擇性適用的問題卻始終困擾著酌定量刑情節(jié)的正確適用。 第三章為常見酌定量刑情節(jié)的分類梳理，共分為三節(jié)。本章以相關(guān)刑事法律和1997年新刑法實(shí)施以來最高人民法院出臺(tái)的相關(guān)刑事司法解釋和規(guī)范性文件為范圍，從法律規(guī)定、理論依據(jù)、實(shí)踐認(rèn)定和具體案例的視角對(duì)常見酌定量刑情節(jié)逐項(xiàng)進(jìn)行分析論證，并歸納提煉出其適用規(guī)律。為便于分析論證，梳理以產(chǎn)生時(shí)間先后順序?yàn)闇?zhǔn)，將酌定量刑情節(jié)劃分為罪前酌定量刑情節(jié)、罪中酌定量刑情節(jié)、罪后酌定量刑情節(jié)。第一節(jié)常見罪前酌定量刑情節(jié)，分析論證將被告人一貫表現(xiàn)、初犯、偶犯、前科劣跡設(shè)為酌定量刑情節(jié)的必要性及其認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。第二節(jié)常見罪中酌定量刑情節(jié)，分析論證重大自然災(zāi)害期間犯罪、特殊犯罪方法或手段、特別危害后果、親屬間犯罪、針對(duì)弱勢(shì)人員犯罪及被害人過錯(cuò)設(shè)為酌定量刑情節(jié)的必要性和及其適用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。第三節(jié)常見罪后酌定量刑情節(jié)，分析論證將事后減少犯罪損失、退贓、退賠、賠償經(jīng)濟(jì)損失、當(dāng)庭自愿認(rèn)罪、被害人諒解設(shè)為酌定量刑情節(jié)的必要性及其適用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。 第四章為酌定量刑情節(jié)的提取標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，共分為四節(jié)。本章在第三章對(duì)常見酌定量刑情節(jié)分類梳理的基礎(chǔ)上，結(jié)合《量刑指導(dǎo)意見》中酌定量刑情節(jié)的相關(guān)規(guī)定，對(duì)酌定量刑情節(jié)的認(rèn)定原則和提取標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行了歸納提煉，并以此為依據(jù)，對(duì)司法實(shí)踐中非酌定量刑情節(jié)情形予以排除。第一節(jié)分析了《量刑指導(dǎo)意見》中酌定量刑情節(jié)相關(guān)規(guī)定的不足。認(rèn)為《量刑指導(dǎo)意見》不僅沒有明確酌定量刑情節(jié)的提取標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，反而限制了法官的自由裁量權(quán)，使得原本應(yīng)屬于相對(duì)自由裁量的內(nèi)容變成了按圖索驥的機(jī)械行為。第二節(jié)提出酌定量刑情節(jié)的適用原則，分別是全面考量、禁止重復(fù)評(píng)價(jià)和個(gè)別化原則。全面考量原則是指應(yīng)當(dāng)考量所有除犯罪構(gòu)成事實(shí)情節(jié)和法定量刑情節(jié)以外、可能對(duì)量刑產(chǎn)生影響的事實(shí)情況；禁止重復(fù)評(píng)價(jià)原則是指對(duì)案件的同一事實(shí)不能進(jìn)行重復(fù)評(píng)價(jià)，以免過度加重或減輕被告人的刑罰；個(gè)別化原則是指應(yīng)當(dāng)具體案件具體認(rèn)定，同時(shí)要反映出具體個(gè)案不同于一類案件的特殊性。第三節(jié)歸納提煉出酌定量刑情節(jié)的提取標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，分別是符合社會(huì)理性和道德、符合刑罰根據(jù)、典型性和可證明性的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，并主張除根據(jù)上述標(biāo)準(zhǔn)判斷提取以外，還應(yīng)當(dāng)綜合考慮犯罪的類型、性質(zhì)、犯罪構(gòu)成事實(shí)情節(jié)和法定量刑情節(jié)等因素。第四節(jié)為非酌定量刑情節(jié)情形的排除。結(jié)合司法實(shí)踐情況和辦案經(jīng)驗(yàn)，根據(jù)酌定量刑情節(jié)的提取標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，提出并排除一些非酌定量刑情節(jié)情形，如社會(huì)治安形勢(shì)、被告人拒不認(rèn)罪、判決前被告人已羈押期限。 第五章為酌定量刑情節(jié)的適用程序，共分兩節(jié)。本章提出，酌定量刑情節(jié)的認(rèn)定和適用之所以亂象叢生，除了其本身的復(fù)雜性和實(shí)體法規(guī)定的缺失外，酌定量刑情節(jié)的證據(jù)要求、證明責(zé)任、證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)以及適用程序的不規(guī)范、不完善也是重要原因。第一節(jié)分析論述酌定量刑情節(jié)的證據(jù)與證明。提出酌定量刑情節(jié)的證據(jù)要求，包括禁止法官主動(dòng)收集、注重收集的全面性、必須經(jīng)過庭審質(zhì)證。明確酌定量刑情節(jié)證明責(zé)任分配原則為“誰主張、誰舉證”，控辯雙方和被害方都要承擔(dān)相應(yīng)的證明責(zé)任。主張適度降低酌定量刑情節(jié)的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，對(duì)不利于被告人的酌定量刑情節(jié)采用“嚴(yán)格證明”標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，對(duì)有利于被告人的則采用“優(yōu)勢(shì)證據(jù)”證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。第二節(jié)提出酌定量刑情節(jié)適用程序的完善建議，具體包括強(qiáng)化檢察機(jī)關(guān)量刑建議、深化裁判文書說理、建立中立社會(huì)調(diào)查機(jī)構(gòu)。 第六章為酌定量刑情節(jié)的規(guī)范路徑，共分為四節(jié)。從短期來看，從司法適用層面規(guī)范酌定量刑情節(jié)適用具有立竿見影之功效，但從長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)來看，從立法層面規(guī)范酌定量刑情節(jié)不僅可以有效制約法官裁量權(quán)的過度行使，而且有利于提高司法效率和實(shí)現(xiàn)司法統(tǒng)一。第一節(jié)明確酌定量刑情節(jié)的刑法地位。針對(duì)《刑法》第61條“酌定量刑情節(jié)適用的法律依據(jù)”規(guī)定的不足之處，建議在《刑法》第61條之后增加“酌定量刑情節(jié)的范圍”和“禁止重復(fù)評(píng)價(jià)”兩款規(guī)定，以對(duì)酌定量刑情節(jié)的刑法地位和考量范圍加以明確。第二節(jié)提出要對(duì)部分酌定量刑情節(jié)予以法定化，并結(jié)合法定化的成功實(shí)踐，總結(jié)提出部分酌定量刑情節(jié)法定化的必要條件。第三節(jié)認(rèn)為以司法解釋和規(guī)范性司法文件對(duì)酌定量刑情節(jié)進(jìn)行規(guī)范，，不僅可以彌補(bǔ)刑法滯后性的不足，而且能夠?yàn)樽枚啃糖楣?jié)的法定化積累經(jīng)驗(yàn)。第四節(jié)強(qiáng)調(diào)構(gòu)建案例指導(dǎo)制度對(duì)酌定量刑情節(jié)的規(guī)范具有重要意義，并對(duì)案例指導(dǎo)制度的完善提出了若干建議，具體包括嚴(yán)格案例選擇標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、強(qiáng)化案例約束力以及構(gòu)建科學(xué)的案例層級(jí)體系。
[Abstract]:As some scholars have said, there may be no statutory circumstances of sentencing in any criminal case, but it is impossible to do without discretionary circumstances of sentencing. With the continuous development of the theory and practice of sentencing, discretionary circumstances of sentencing play an increasingly important role in sentencing.
For a long time, in view of the "discretionary" characteristics of discretionary circumstances, theorists often believe that it can not or should not be regulated, otherwise it will lose its value and significance of existence, so discretionary circumstances of sentencing. In December 2013, the Supreme People's Court issued the Notice on the Implementation of Standardization of Sentencing and the Guiding Opinion on the Sentencing of Common Crimes. It is decided to formally implement the standardization of sentencing from January 1, 2014. Among them, standardizing the application of discretionary circumstances of sentencing has become one of the important contents of the standardization of sentencing. The discretionary circumstances of sentencing have been formally put into the orbit of standardization application. This paper attempts to take the "Guiding Opinions of the People's Court on Sentencing (Trial Implementation)" formulated by the Supreme People's Court in 2010 (hereinafter referred to as " Guided by the Guiding Opinions on Sentencing Procedure and the Opinions on Sentencing Procedure of the People's Court (hereinafter referred to as the Opinions on Sentencing Procedure), this paper discriminates and demonstrates the conceptual features, legal basis, applicable problems and influence of discretionary circumstances of sentencing, and on the basis of sorting out the common discretionary circumstances of sentencing in judicial practice, it discusses the substantive and procedural aspects. This paper puts forward the standards and requirements for the application of the discretionary circumstances of sentences, and finally puts forward some suggestions for the improvement of the normative path for the legislative and judicial organs.
In view of the important position and role of discretionary circumstances in sentencing, its standardization is not only an important content of the reform of sentencing standardization, but also a key link to realize judicial justice. The first section introduces the background and significance of the reform of sentencing standardization in China. On this basis, the author argues that the standardization of sentencing can not be separated from the norms applicable to discretionary circumstances of sentencing. The second section defines the concept and characteristics of discretionary circumstances of sentencing. Starting from the disputes in the concept of discretionary circumstances of sentencing, this paper analyzes the concepts of "circumstances" and "circumstances of sentencing" in criminal law, and combines the general theory of academia with the relevant provisions of "Guiding Opinions on sentencing". This paper redefines the discretionary circumstances of sentencing as various cases which are beyond the factual circumstances of the crime and the circumstance of the statutory sentencing and are determined by the judge at his discretion in sentencing and have an impact on the result of sentencing. It points out that the discretionary circumstances of sentencing have the characteristics of illegality, richness, concreteness and variability. The introduction and Enlightenment of the application of the criterion of circumstances of sentencing. By comparing and drawing lessons from the development and experience of the countries and regions of common law system and continental law system in the application of the criterion of circumstances of sentencing discretion, this paper puts forward that the application of the criterion of circumstances of sentencing discretion conforms to the development trend of sentencing system in the world, and the discretion of judges should be respected and limited. The viewpoint of system.
The second chapter is the theoretical basis and application of discretionary circumstances of sentencing, which is divided into three sections. Because the law has no specific provisions on the content and influence of discretionary circumstances of sentencing, the theoretical circles lack a unified understanding, leading to the judicial practice judges dare not apply, excessive application and selective application of the problem occur frequently, and become a quantity. It is of great significance to explain and solve these problems theoretically for promoting the standardization and application of discretionary circumstances. Section 1 analyzes and expounds the theoretical basis of discretionary circumstances of punishment. The purpose of penalty and the need of restorative judicial theory are the result of the unification of the principle of compatibility between crime and punishment, the principle and flexibility, and the basis of the realization of individualization of penalty. Section 2 discusses the influence of discretionary circumstances of sentencing. Starting from the nature of discretionary circumstances of sentencing, it is pointed out that discretionary circumstances of sentencing are of great importance and light weight. The third section summarizes and analyzes the main problems in the application of discretionary circumstances of sentencing. Some discretionary circumstances of sentencing have become the key factors affecting sentencing, such as returning stolen goods, returning compensation, compensating for economic losses and other discretionary circumstances of sentencing. Sometimes the loudness even surpasses surrender, confession and other statutory circumstances of sentencing, but the extraction criteria are not clear, the judge's discretion is too large, the problem of selective application has always been plagued by the correct application of discretionary circumstances of sentencing.
The third chapter is the classification of common discretionary sentencing circumstances, which is divided into three sections. This chapter takes the relevant criminal law and the relevant criminal judicial interpretation and normative documents issued by the Supreme People's Court since the implementation of the new criminal law in 1997 as the scope, from the legal provisions, theoretical basis, practical identification and specific case Perspective of the common discretionary sentencing circumstances. In order to facilitate analysis and argumentation, comb out the sequence of time to produce, divide discretionary sentencing circumstances into discretionary sentencing circumstances before crime, discretionary sentencing circumstances in crime, discretionary sentencing circumstances after crime. At present, the first offense, accidental offense and criminal record are the necessity and criteria for determining the circumstances of discretionary sentencing. Section 2 The discretionary circumstances of sentencing in common crimes are analyzed and demonstrated. Crimes committed during major natural disasters, special methods or means of crime, especially harmful consequences, crimes committed between relatives, crimes committed against vulnerable persons and the fault of victims are discretionary circumstances of sentencing. The third section analyzes and proves the necessity and applicable standard of reducing the criminal loss, returning the stolen goods, returning the compensation, compensating the economic loss, voluntarily pleading guilty in court and the victim's understanding as the discretionary circumstances of sentencing.
Chapter Four is the extraction criteria of discretionary circumstances of sentencing, which is divided into four sections. On the basis of the classification of common circumstances of discretionary circumstances of sentencing in Chapter Three, combined with the relevant provisions of discretionary circumstances of sentencing in Guiding Opinions on sentencing, this chapter summarizes and refines the identification principles and extraction criteria of discretionary circumstances of sentencing, and on the basis of this, summarizes the judicial facts. The first section analyzes the deficiencies of the relevant provisions in the Guiding Opinions on Sentencing. It holds that the Guiding Opinions on Sentencing not only fails to specify the criteria for extracting the circumstances of sentencing discretion, but also limits the discretion of judges, making the content which should have belonged to relative discretion become. Section 2 puts forward the applicable principles of discretionary circumstances of sentencing, namely, comprehensive consideration, prohibition of repeated evaluation and individualization. Principle refers to the same fact of the case can not be repeated evaluation, in order to avoid excessive aggravation or mitigation of the defendant's punishment; Individualization principle refers to the specific case should be identified, while reflecting the specific case is different from a class of cases. Section 3 summarizes the extraction criteria of discretionary circumstances of sentencing, respectively, is in line with the criteria. Social reason and morality conform to the criteria of penalty basis, typicality and provability, and advocate that in addition to judging and extracting according to the above criteria, we should also consider synthetically the type, nature of the crime, the factual circumstances of the crime and the circumstances of the legally prescribed punishment. According to the criteria for extracting discretionary circumstances of sentencing, some cases of discretionary circumstances of sentencing, such as the social security situation, the defendant refused to plead guilty, and the time limit for the defendant to be detained before the judgment, were put forward and excluded.
The fifth chapter is the application procedure of discretionary circumstances of sentencing, which is divided into two sections. This chapter points out that the identification and application of discretionary circumstances of sentencing are disorderly, besides its own complexity and the lack of substantive law, the evidential requirements of discretionary circumstances of sentencing, the burden of proof, the standard of proof and the non-standard procedure of application are also important. The first section analyzes and discusses the evidence and proof of discretionary circumstances of sentencing.The requirements of evidence for discretionary circumstances of sentencing are put forward,including forbidding judges to collect the evidence voluntarily and paying attention to the comprehensiveness of the collection.The principle of distribution of burden of proof in discretionary circumstances of sentencing must be clarified.The prosecution and defense sides and the victim should bear the burden of proof. The corresponding burden of proof is advocated. The standard of proof of discretionary circumstances of sentencing should be moderately lowered, the standard of "strict proof" should be adopted for circumstances unfavorable to the defendant, and the standard of "superior evidence" should be adopted for those favorable to the defendant. Section 2 puts forward suggestions for perfecting the procedure of application of discretionary circumstances of sentencing, including strengthening procuratorial machinery. We should deepen the judgment of sentencing and establish a neutral social investigation organization.
Chapter 6 is the normative path of discretionary circumstances of sentencing, which is divided into four sections. In the short run, it is of immediate effect to regulate the application of discretionary circumstances of sentencing from the perspective of judicial application, but in the long run, it is not only effective to restrict the excessive exercise of judges'discretion, but also conducive to the improvement of Judicature from the perspective of legislation. Section 1 clarifies the status of discretionary circumstances in criminal law. In view of the shortcomings of the provisions of Article 61 of the Criminal Law on the legal basis for the application of discretionary circumstances, it is proposed to add the provisions of "the scope of discretionary circumstances" and "the prohibition of repeated evaluation" after Article 61 of the Criminal Law to the discretionary circumstances of sentencing. Section 2 proposes that some discretionary circumstances should be legalized, and the necessary conditions for the legalization of some discretionary circumstances should be summarized and put forward in combination with the successful practice of legalization. In order to make up for the lag of criminal law and accumulate experience for the legalization of discretionary circumstances, section 4 emphasizes that the construction of case guidance system is of great significance to the standardization of discretionary circumstances, and puts forward some suggestions for the perfection of case guidance system, including strict case selection criteria, strengthening case binding force and so on. Constructing a scientific case hierarchy system.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2;D924.13

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 翟中東;關(guān)于將人格導(dǎo)入定罪活動(dòng)的研究[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2004年05期

2 王晨;論酌定量刑情節(jié)[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));1992年05期

3 張寶華;酌定情節(jié)探討[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));1993年03期

4 江必新;;論司法自由裁量權(quán)[J];法律適用;2006年11期

5 高憬宏;黃應(yīng)生;;積極穩(wěn)妥推進(jìn)量刑規(guī)范化改革[J];法律適用;2009年08期

6 高銘暄;;寬嚴(yán)相濟(jì)刑事政策與酌定量刑情節(jié)的適用[J];法學(xué)雜志;2007年01期

7 王明,吳在存;刑罰個(gè)別化原則及其適用[J];法學(xué)雜志;1998年03期

8 胡學(xué)相;鮮鐵可;;論量刑的根據(jù)[J];法學(xué)家;1993年Z1期

9 于志剛;;論前科制度的理論根據(jù)[J];法學(xué)家;2001年06期

10 周靜 ,張寶華;酌定量刑情節(jié)范圍探討[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;1993年06期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 王U

本文編號(hào)：2244483