论刑法中的法律拟制

发布时间：2018-03-28 02:33

本文选题：法律拟制　切入点：条款梳理　出处：《南京大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：法律拟制最早出现在罗马法中,发展至今天,已经成为民法、诉讼法、经济法、刑法等诸多部门法都存在的一种现象。不同于英美法系国家的法律拟制主要表现在司法拟制过程中,作为大陆法系国家的中国的法律拟制体现在立法层面,特别是以罪刑法定原则为基石的刑法领域,法律拟制更应限定在立法层面。刑法中的法律拟制是指基于公共政策的考量,有意地将此事实视为彼事实,赋予其相同的法律后果的,既能适应社会需要又能彰显法律基本价值的不允许反驳的一种立法方法。其具有表述方式的特定化、拟制事实的异质性、侵害法益的相当性、适用情形的法定性的特点。刑法中的法律拟制有利于节约立法、司法资源,有利于实现罪刑相适应。应注意区分法律拟制与刑事推定、刑事类推、注意规定、转化犯等制度和概念,特别是法律拟制和注意规定的区分是刑法解释论的重要课题,直接关系罪与非罪、此罪与彼罪的认定。以现行刑法中的法律拟制条文为范本研究法律拟制是一条重要路径,现行刑法中有二十余条法律拟制条文,涉及分则和总则。除267条第2款、269条拟制型抢劫罪等典型的拟制条文外,还存在“致人伤残、死亡的”规定、依照盗窃罪定罪处罚之规定等一些有争议的条文,争议条文主要集中在法律拟制和注意规定的认定上,可从是否存在设立注意规定或法律拟制的必要性、法益侵害相当性、条款是否具有特殊内容等方面考量,结合体系解释、目的论解释等多种解释方法,从刑法保护的法益、行为处罚的必要性、国民的预测可能性、刑法条文之间的协调性等多方面进行综合评判。除刑法典外,我国刑法立法解释和司法解释中的法律拟制现象也屡见不鲜。法律拟制毕竟是“立法层面的类推”,类推具有的风险法律拟制同样存在,法律拟制不应成为立法过程中过分倚重的技术手段,拟制不当会导致背离人权保障机能、凸显重刑主义、破坏刑法规范的协调、架空犯罪构成理论的风险,我国刑法中的部分拟制条款存在这些倾向。虽然法律拟制有其固有的风险,但摒弃这种重要的立法技术不是良策,我们要做的是发挥好的拟制的功效,避免恶的拟制的出现,这就需要对法律拟制进行限定。从主体上讲,法律拟制权必须由也只能由立法机关行使,法律拟制属于法律保留事项,我国刑法立法解释特别是司法解释中存在的拟制情形是缺乏正当性基础的。立法机关在进行法律拟制时要遵循刑法基本原则、法益侵害相当性和拟制必要性的原则审慎拟制,同时司法机关工作人员必须对法律拟制条款有清晰合理的认识,在实践中正确适用法律拟制条款,避免拟制条款可能的风险。
[Abstract]:Legal fiction first appeared in Roman law, and has developed into civil law, procedural law, and economic law. Different from the common law countries, the legal fiction is mainly manifested in the judicial fictitious process, and as a civil law country, the Chinese legal fiction is embodied in the legislative level. Especially in the field of criminal law, which is based on the principle of legality, the fiction of law should be restricted to the level of legislation. The fiction of law in criminal law refers to the consideration of public policy, and deliberately regards this fact as a fact. Having the same legal consequences, a legislative method that not only meets the social needs but also demonstrates the basic value of the law, and is not allowed to refute. It has the specificity of the expression, the heterogeneity of the fictitious facts, and the equivalence of infringing legal interests. The legal fiction in criminal law is conducive to saving legislation, judicial resources and realizing the adaptation of crime and punishment. Attention should be paid to the distinction between legal fiction and criminal presumption, criminal analogy, and provisions. The system and concept of transforming crime, especially the distinction between legal fiction and attention regulation, is an important subject in the theory of criminal law interpretation, which is directly related to crime and non-crime. It is an important way to study the legal fiction by taking the legal fictitious provisions in the current criminal law as a model, and there are more than 20 legal fictitious provisions in the current criminal law. In addition to the typical fictitious provisions such as the crime of fictitious robbery, such as 267, paragraph 2, and 269, there are still some controversial provisions such as "maiming and death" and provisions on conviction and punishment for larceny, etc. The controversial articles mainly focus on the legal fiction and the cognizance of the attention provisions, which can be considered from the following aspects: whether there is the necessity of establishing the attention regulation or the legal fiction, the equivalence of the infringement of legal interests, whether the articles have special contents, and so on, which can be interpreted in combination with the system. The purpose theory of interpretation and other interpretation methods, from the legal interests of criminal law protection, the necessity of behavior punishment, the possibility of national prediction, the coordination between the articles of criminal law and so on, are comprehensively evaluated. The phenomenon of legal fiction in the legislative interpretation and judicial interpretation of criminal law in our country is also common. After all, the legal fiction is "legislative analogies", and the analogies of risk legal fiction also exist. The fiction of law should not become a technical means which relies too much on in the process of legislation. Improper fictitious will lead to deviation from the function of human rights protection, highlight the doctrine of heavy punishment, destroy the coordination of criminal law norms, and constitute the risk of the theory of crime. Some of the fictitious clauses in our criminal law have these tendencies. Although fictitious law has its inherent risks, it is not a good policy to abandon this important legislative technique. What we should do is to play a good role in fiction and avoid the appearance of evil fictitious. From the subject point of view, the power of legal fiction must and can only be exercised by the legislature, and the legal fiction is a matter of legal reservation. The fictitious situation in the legislative interpretation of criminal law, especially in the judicial interpretation, lacks the basis of legitimacy. The legislature should abide by the basic principles of criminal law in carrying out the legal fiction, the principle that the legal interests infringe on the equivalence and the necessity of the fictitious system should be carefully drawn up. At the same time, the staff of the judicial organs must have a clear and reasonable understanding of the fictitious clauses of the law, apply them correctly in practice, and avoid the possible risks of the fictitious clauses.
【学位授予单位】：南京大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D914

【参考文献】