浅析特异体质对于轻微暴力致人死亡案件的影响

   在刑事案件中，有一类刑事案件行为人对被害人实施了危险程度不高的伤害行为，在一般情况下如上的轻微暴力行为不会导致被害人死亡危害后果，但由于被害人的某种特异体质（例如“瓷娃娃”“血友病”等），轻微暴力或是诱发特异因素，二者共同作用最终酿成恶果。
   In criminal cases, there is a type of criminal case where the perpetrator has carried out a low-risk injury to the victim. In general, the above-mentioned minor violence will not lead to the consequences of the victim's death, but due to theidiosyncrasy of the victim (such as"Porcelain Doll", "Hemophilia", etc.), slight violence or induced specific factors, the combined effect of the two eventually leads to bad results.
   在实务中，特异体质对于案件定性的影响也存在不同的标准。主要存在以下观点：行为人实施了暴力行为且构成了伤害后果，构成过失犯罪；存在故意伤害的主观目的，构成故意伤害罪。笔者以指导案例为例，简要分析两种裁判意见。
In practice, there are different standards for the influence ofidiosyncrasyon the defining of cases. The main points are as follows: the perpetrator committed violent acts and constituted the consequences of injury, which constituted the crime of negligence; the existence of the subjective purpose of intentional injury constituted the crime of intentional injury. Taking the guidance case as an example, the author briefly analyzes two kinds of referee opinions.
   《审判参考》指导案例[第1079号]基本案情:2011年9月30日19时许，都某及其子都某乙在某高校宿舍区与该高校教授陈某因车辆进出问题，发生口角，继而打斗在一起。在打斗过程中，都某拳击、脚踹陈某头部、腹部，致其鼻腔出血。后陈某报警。在此过程中，都某乙与陈某的妻子邵某发生拉扯，并将邵某
推倒在地。民警赶到现场后将双方带到派出所接受处理，在派出所大厅等候处理期间，陈某突然倒地，后经送医院抢救无效于当日死亡。经鉴定，陈某有高血压并冠状动脉粥样硬化性心脏病，因纠纷后情绪激动、头面部(鼻根部)受外力作用等导致机体应激反应，促发有病变的心脏骤停而死亡。[1]
"Trial Reference" Guiding Case [No. 1079] Basic Facts: At 19:00 on September 30, 2011, Senior Du and his son Junior Du were in a college dormitory area with a professor Chen from the college due to vehicle access problems,and then fighted together. During the fight, Senior Du hit Chen Mou's head and abdomen with punch and kick, causing nasal bleeding. Later Chen called the police. In the process, Junior Du and Chen's wife Miss Shao pulled each other, and Miss Shao was been
Pushed to the ground. The police arrived at the scene and took the two parties to the police station for treatment. During the waiting period in the police station hall, Chen suddenly fell to the ground and was later sent to the hospital for rescue. It was identified that Chen had hypertension and coronary atherosclerotic heart disease. His emotional response after the dispute and external force on the head and face (root of the nose) caused the body to respond to the stress, which caused the sudden cardiac arrest and died .

[1]《检察日报：刑事审判思考》，陈章，载检察日报网，http://newspaper.jcrb.com/2019/20190426/20190426_003/20190426_003_5.htm，2010年1月6日最后访问
   

   本案审理法院认为，行为人对于被害人有加害行为且殴打部位为人体脆弱部位，行为人作为成年人应当预见这样的暴力行为将造成伤害后果，仍实施了殴打行为，同时殴打他人的行为具有一定的社会危害性，侵犯了被害人的人身权利，即使被害人本身具有疾病属于特异体质，但属于多因一果。应认定为过失致人死亡罪。本案裁判也指出在一般争执过程中，行为人实施的暴力行为属于带有加害风险的行为，行为人通过殴打他人泄愤的同时，伴有导致他人受伤或者死亡的可能。行为人的暴力行为导致被害人产生机体应激反应并促发特殊疾病而死亡的，应认定行为人主观上具有过失，以过失致人死亡罪定罪。
   The trial court held that the perpetrator had an act of aggravating the victim and that the beating site was a fragile part of the human body. As an adult, the perpetrator should foresee such violent behavior would cause harm and still perform the beating behavior. It is socially harmful and violates the victim's personal rights. Even if the victim has a disease that belongs to a specific constitution, it has multiple causes and one effect.IT Should be found to be a crime of negligent homicide. The referee in this case also pointed out that in the course of ordinary disputes, the violent acts committed by the perpetrators are acts with a risk of harm. At the same time that the perpetrators vented their anger by beating others, they were also accompanied by the possibility of causing injuries or death to others. If the perpetrator's violent behavior causes the victim to have a physical stress response and provoke death from a special disease, the perpetrator should be found to have been subjectively at fault and convicted of the crime of negligent homicide .
   笔者认为上述观点具有片面性。首先我国刑法对于过失犯罪的定性分为两种：应当与预见而因疏忽大意没有预见和已经预见轻信能够避免。本案中行为人因口角和被害人产生争执继而发生扭打，行为人对于被害人的特异体质不存在认识可能性，故对于一般的轻微暴力行为能够致使被害人死亡的结果同样不具有认识可能性。而《刑法》中对于过失犯罪的认定前提以行为人有相应的认识，故笔者认为不应当认定本案行为人的伤害行为为过失犯罪。
   The author believes that the above-mentioned view is one-sided. First of all, the characterization of negligent crimes in Chinese criminal law is divided into two types: they should be foreseen but not foreseen due to negligence and it has been foreseen that credulity can be avoided. In this case, the perpetrators had a scuffle due to a dispute between the perpetrator and the victim. The perpetrator did not have the possibility of knowing theidiosyncrasyof the victim. Therefore, he did not have the possibility of knowing the consequences of ordinary mild violence that could cause the victim to die. However, in the Criminal Law, the premise of the determination of negligent crimes is that the perpetrators have corresponding knowledge. Therefore, the author believes that the harming behavior of the perpetrators in this case should not be regarded as negligent crimes.
    与此同时有学者指出，尽管行为人对于被害人死亡的结果以及特异体质不具有认识可能性，被害人的自身特异体质是致使死亡结果的主要原因，不应由行为人承担加重结果，但行为人对于被害人的殴打行为有主观的伤害故意，行为人的暴力行为造成了相应的伤害结果，且伤害结果与殴打行为之间有因果关系，故应以故意伤害罪予以定罪处罚。与该观点相似的观点为行为人对被害人的死亡系过失，对于扭打中的殴打行为应认定为故意犯罪。
   At the same time, some scholars have pointed out that although the perpetrator does not have the possibility of knowing the outcome of the victim's death and the idiosyncrasy, the victim's own idiosyncrasy is the main cause of the death result. The beating of the victim is subjective and intentional. The violent behavior of the perpetrator has caused the corresponding result of injury, and there is a causal relationship between the injury result and the beating. Therefore, the crime of intentional injury should be convicted and punished. A similar view is that the perpetrator was negligent in the death of the victim, and the assault in the scuffle should be considered an intentional crime.
   笔者认可上述观点，但提炼上述观点的逻辑后有不妥之处。我国《刑法》中对于故意伤害罪的认定中，要求行为人的主观故意是主观上放任或追求造成相对人轻伤以上伤害结果的故意，但在本案中行为人的行为系因口角发生的扭打在较短时间内在情绪作用下的泄愤的故意与故意伤害中的故意在认定上仍有差距，简单分析认定为故意伤害罪略有不妥。笔者认为应当以意外事件，行为人主观上既不构成故意伤害中的故意，亦不符合过失，客观上伤害行为与死亡结果属于多因一果，在现有证据不能形成证据闭合证明行为人行为的现状下，不应做“有罪推定”。
   The author agrees with the above-mentionedpoint of view, but there is something wrong with refining the logic of the above point of view. In the "Criminal Law" of China, in the determination of the crime of intentional injury, the perpetrator's subjective intention is deliberately laissez-faire or pursuing the intention of causing a person to suffer minor injuries or more. However, in this case, the perpetrator's behavior was due to scuffle In a relatively short period of time, there is still a gap between the intentional anger and the intentional harm in intentional harm. A simple analysis is slightly wrong. The author believes that the incident should be based on an accident, and the subjective subjective neither idiosyncrasy harm in intentional harm nor negligence. Objectively, the harmful behavior and the death result belong to multiple causes and one effect. In the existing evidence, the evidence cannot be closed to prove the behavior of the perpetrator. In the current situation, "presumption of guilt" should not be made.
   综上，是否要求行为人对于轻微暴力致人死亡的案件中被害人的特异体质存在认识可能性，两种裁判不同的主要关键点，在实务案件中也应从行为人的殴打部分、暴力强度、是否有作案工具、案件起因等因素综合分析。
   In summary, whether the actor is required to recognize the idiosyncrasy  of the victim in the case of death caused by slight violence. The two main points of difference between the two kinds of judgments should also be based upon the beating part, intensity of violence, Comprehensive analysis of factors such as crime tools and case causes.

作者简介：张阐，1998年出生，2017年起就读于上海商学院文法学院法学专业。校辩论队负责人，曾多次参加上海市级辩论赛、法治辩论赛、上海市大学生模拟法庭竞赛，均获得较好成绩，同时四次荣获上海商学院校综合奖学金，主要研究方向为刑法及讼诉法学。