论刑法的形式解释与实质解释的结合

发布时间：2018-01-12 16:18

本文关键词：论刑法的形式解释与实质解释的结合　出处：《中国海洋大学》2015年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：刑法解释是一个兼具理论性和实践性的论题,近年来刑法学界给予了深度关注,许多学者发文立论,著书立说,但总体看来是理论性有余而实践性不足,浮躁立论稍多而冷静思考不足。本文在总结梳理前人理论成果的基础上,提出自已的解释立场,并对这一立场进行了理论上和实践上的充分论证,力求其在解释中的合理性,力保其在适用中的可行性。正文总共四个部分,第一部分主要运用文献研究方法,阐明形式解释与实质解释在我国刑法解释中的地位,梳理分析理论界关于形式解释与实质解释的论说,提出没有绝对的实质解释论和绝对的形式解释论,刑法的解释需要确定立场的观点。正文第二部分主要运用比较研究法和文献研究方法,在总结和反思形式与实质之争的基础上,厘清形式解释与实质解释在犯罪构成方面和解释论方面的分歧,并对分歧进行深入分析,得出二者的分歧最终将在到常识主义范围内得到平衡与调和的结论。正文第三部分为本文重点,提出形式与实质相结合的解释立场,并对此展开详细的阐述。主张用辩证的形式理性与实质理性相结合的立场来解释刑法,即以形式解释为基础,以实质解释为补充,在遵循形式解释的基础上尽可能地关照实质解释的作用。通过对形式与实质相结合立场的理论前提、社会前提和对刑法人权保障和法益保护的重要意义来阐明这一立场的合理性与必要性。正文第四部分主要运用案例分析的研究方法,对形式解释与实质解释相结合的解释理论进行实践检验。运用此解释理论检视当前司法解释中的问题,发现司法实践中仍存在一些超出形式限度的实质解释和机械运用形式解释的现象。通过例举两个较为典型案例——销售印度仿制药案和近年来频发的网络诽谤案分析,展现形式解释与实质解释相结合立场在具体案件中的运用。通过上述四个部分的论述分析,最终形成如下研究结论：在具体司法实务中,不论是在犯罪构成领域还是在解释论范畴,形式理性和实质理性所呈现出来的分歧并非是不可调和的,解释的结论最终都需回归常识主义。选择辩证的形式理性与实质理性相结合的立场来解释刑法,是解决旧问题,应对新问题的一个有效途径。刑法形式解释与实质解释相结合的过程可以概括为,在遵循“形式合理性”的基础上尽可能的关照、维护“实质合理性”,即对“实质”考量不能超出“形式”的限制；刑法形式解释与实质解释能够结合的理论前提是罪刑法定原则；刑法形式解释与实质解释能够结合的社会前提则是中国在前法治时期的法治现状；刑法形式解释与实质解释相结合的出发点是刑法人权保障和法益保护机能；刑法形式解释与实质解释相结合的落脚点就是常识主义。
[Abstract]:The interpretation of criminal law is a theoretical and practical topic. In recent years, the criminal law circles have paid deep attention to it. Many scholars have published articles and written articles, but generally speaking, they are more theoretical than practical. On the basis of summarizing and combing the previous theoretical achievements, this paper puts forward its own interpretation position, and fully demonstrates this position in theory and practice. Strive for its rationality in the interpretation, to ensure its feasibility in the application. The text is a total of four parts, the first part of the main use of literature research methods. It clarifies the status of formal interpretation and substantive interpretation in the interpretation of criminal law in China, combs the theories of formal interpretation and substantive interpretation in the theoretical circle of analysis, and puts forward that there is no absolute theory of substantive interpretation and absolute theory of formal interpretation. The second part of the text mainly uses the comparative research method and the literature research method, on the basis of summing up and reflecting the dispute between form and substance. It clarifies the differences between formal interpretation and substantive interpretation in terms of the constitution of the crime and the theory of interpretation, and makes an in-depth analysis of the differences. Draw the conclusion that the differences between the two will eventually be balanced and reconciled within the scope of common sense. The third part of the text is the focus of this paper, put forward the combination of form and substance of the interpretation position. The author advocates that the criminal law should be interpreted from the standpoint of dialectical formal rationality and substantive rationality, which is based on formal interpretation and supplemented by substantive interpretation. On the basis of following formal interpretation, we should pay attention to the function of substantive interpretation as far as possible. The social premise and the important significance of the protection of human rights and legal interests of criminal law to clarify the reasonableness and necessity of this position. Part 4th of the text mainly uses the case study method. This paper tests the theory of interpretation which combines formal interpretation with substantive interpretation and examines the problems in the current judicial interpretation by using this theory. It is found that there are still some phenomena of substantial interpretation and mechanical interpretation in judicial practice. By citing two more typical cases-the sale of generic drugs in India and the frequent online libel cases in recent years. Analysis. Through the analysis of the above four parts, the conclusion is as follows: in the specific judicial practice. Whether in the field of crime composition or in the category of interpretation, the differences between formal rationality and substantive rationality are not irreconcilable. The conclusion of interpretation all need to return to common sense in the end. It is to solve the old problem to choose the position of combining dialectical formal rationality and substantive rationality to interpret criminal law. The process of combining the formal interpretation of criminal law with the substantive interpretation can be summed up as follows the "formal rationality" on the basis of as much care as possible to maintain "substantive rationality". That is, the consideration of "substance" cannot exceed the limitation of "form"; The theoretical premise of the combination of formal interpretation of criminal law and substantive interpretation is the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime. The social premise of the combination of formal interpretation of criminal law and substantive interpretation is the present situation of the rule of law in China in the pre-rule of law period; The starting point of the combination of formal interpretation of criminal law and substantive interpretation is the protection of human rights of criminal law and the function of legal interest protection. The goal of the combination of formal interpretation of criminal law and substantive interpretation is common sense.
【学位授予单位】：中国海洋大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D924

【参考文献】