摘要：

通说认为，抢劫罪应符合“两个当场”“足以压制被害人的反抗”之特征。建立在通说基础之上的关于抢劫罪与敲诈勒索罪、寻衅滋事罪、强迫交易罪、抢夺罪等的区分标准，在审判实践中并未得到完全贯彻。我国刑法中抢劫罪的法定刑偏重，明显重于敲诈勒索罪及其他财产犯罪，抢夺罪、寻衅滋事罪事实上“分流”了部分抢劫行为，应进一步限制解释抢劫罪。“两个当场”“足以压制被害人的反抗”“使用暴力”等特征更多是认定抢劫罪的一种经验形态，不应成为认定抢劫罪的标准。以对被害人的控制界定抢劫罪的手段行为，会导致判断标准缺乏明确性，有违罪刑均衡。应以行为对被害人的侵害程度为中心，而非以被害人的财产处分自由、行为人对被害人的控制为中心来界定抢劫罪。抢劫罪的手段行为是足以严重侵害或危及被害人身体健康、生命安全、人身自由，或以此相威胁并具有现实危险的行为。应在承认抢劫罪与部分犯罪存在竞合关系的前提下，正确认识抢劫罪与其他犯罪的关系。

关键词: 抢劫罪, 两个当场, 敲诈勒索罪, 罪刑均衡

Abstract:

In general theory that the crime of robbery should be in line with“two on the spot”and“sufficient to suppress the victim's resistance”.The standard of distinguishing robbery from extortion，affray，forced transaction and snatch，which are based on the general theory，has not been fully implemented in the trial practice.The legal penalty of robbery in China's criminal law is biased，obviously heavier than extortion and other property crimes.In fact，the crime of snatching and the crime of affray“diverts”part of the robbery，so the interpretation of robbery should be further restricted.“Two on the spot sufficient to suppress the victim's resistance”and“using violence”are more of an empirical form of identifying robbery，which should not be the standard of identifying robbery.It is against the balance of crime and punishment to define robbery by means of controlling the victim.The definition of robbery should be based on the degree of infringement of the act on the victim，not on the victim's freedom of disposition and control of the victim.The means of robbery must be enough to seriously infringe or endanger the health，life safety and personal freedom of the victim，or to threaten and have real danger.It is necessary to correctly understand the relationship between robbery and other crimes on the premise that the crime of robbery and some crimes are overlapped.

Key words: Crime of Robbery, Two on the Spot, Crime of Extortion, Balance Between Crime and Punishment