论文部分内容阅读
對於唐代的保辜制度,學界業已積累了豐富的研究成果。姑且不論傳統律學對此進行的條目箋釋[1],以現代法律思維對唐律條文予以系統董理者,目力所及,應由仁井田陞發其端,將之視爲“結果加重犯”[2],而由戴炎輝集其成,對唐代保辜予以類型化,將之一分爲三,即“因果關係的保辜”、“處罰條件的保辜”和“減刑的保辜”[3]。此後,通過條文解析,研究保辜所涉罪名制度功能者,不乏其例,但皆未超出戴氏所論[4]
For the system of guards in the Tang Dynasty, the academic community has accumulated a wealth of research results. Regardless of whether the article on traditional Chinese law should make a comment on the article [1], the legal legal system should govern Tang’s article as a system manager. Guilty of “[guo guo guo guo guo guan guo guan guo guan guan] guan guo guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan guan zu guan zu guan zu guan zu guan zu guan guan ”Commutation of guillotine" [3]. Since then, there have been many examples of the system of guilty conscience in terms of clauses analysis, but none of them goes beyond that of Dai [4]