行政犯违法性判断的从属性和独立性研究

发布时间：2018-04-04 13:51

本文选题：行政犯　切入点：法定犯　出处：《法学家》2017年01期

【摘要】：对于行政犯而言,存在着行政不法与刑事不法类型的重叠或交叉,两者之间的界限模糊不清,导致现实中行政执法与刑事司法的衔接不畅。以往的研究或过于抽象笼统,或纠缠于各自要素上的细枝末节,无法真正厘清行政不法与刑事不法的界限。在法益保护主义的前提下,质的差异论和量的差异论并非完全对立。前置性的行政不法对行政犯的成立而言虽然不可或缺,但行政法与刑法在规制范围、规制目的上的差异,决定了司法需要根据法益侵害的性质分别运用质的差异和量的差异妥当地划定行政不法与刑事不法的范围。在行政不法与刑事不法的法益侵害性质相异或者行政不法侵害法益过于抽象的场合,应直接依据质的差异论发挥法益对罪与非罪的界分功能;而在行政不法与刑事不法的法益侵害性质相同时,则依据刑法的从属性性质以法益侵害的程度即量的差异对两者实现有效的区分和衔接。
[Abstract]:For administrative offenders, there is overlap or intersection between administrative illegal and criminal illegal types, the boundary between the two is blurred, resulting in the reality of the link between administrative law enforcement and criminal justice is not smooth.Previous studies have been too abstract and general, or entangled in the details of their own elements, can not really clarify the administrative and criminal illegal boundaries.Under the premise of legal interest protectionism, qualitative difference theory and quantitative difference theory are not completely opposite.Although administrative malfeasance is indispensable to the establishment of administrative offense, there are differences between administrative law and criminal law in the scope of regulation and the purpose of regulation.It is decided that the judicial need to use the qualitative difference and the quantity difference according to the nature of the legal interest infringement to delimit the scope of the administrative illegal and the criminal malfeasance.On the occasion that the legal interests of administrative malfeasance and criminal malfeasance are different in nature or too abstract, the function of dividing legal interests between crime and non-crime should be brought into play directly on the basis of qualitative difference theory.When the nature of legal interest infringement of administrative malfeasance and criminal malfeasance is the same, according to the subordinate nature of criminal law, the difference of the degree or quantity of legal interest infringement can effectively distinguish and link up the two.
【作者单位】：南京大学法学院;
【基金】：教育部人文社会科学研究项目“经济犯罪刑事政策研究”(11YJA820062)的阶段性研究成果
【分类号】：D924.3

【相似文献】