行政犯定罪的基本原理

发布时间：2018-06-15 12:06

本文选题：行政犯 + 空白罪状　；参考：《上海交通大学》2014年博士论文

【摘要】：行政犯的二次违法性特征决定了其在定罪过程中，必然遭遇传统刑事犯（自然犯）不曾遇到的问题与争议。首先，行政犯广泛采用的空白罪状即面临罪刑法定原则的拷问。从理论依据和现实需要两个层面分析，空白罪状与罪刑法定原则所要求的法律民主性、专属性和明确性之间不存在根本冲突，，但我国立法上却有诸多值得注意和改进之处。空白罪状在司法实践中的最大问题在于前置法规的范围与援引，范围上应严格遵循罪刑法定原则，对较低位阶的前置法规应当实行司法审查。在前置法规的援引上，应当遵循法律位阶规则、法益同一规则和转授权立法无效规则。行政犯以行政违法性为前提，其定罪必须经历从行政违法到刑事违法的认定过程，因此违法性判断是行政犯定罪的核心问题。我国可以在借鉴大陆法系的违法性理论基础之上，将违法性作为犯罪成立的一个独立条件在司法定罪过程中得以适用，而不仅仅作为犯罪特征予以描述。行政犯的行政违法性的判断主体应为司法机关而非行政机关，判断标准应为实质标准而非形式标准，判断方法应为多层次而非一元化。在刑事违法性判断问题上，应在缓和违法一元论的理论框架下，保证其对行政违法一定的依附性，同时又要通过用语解释、司法排除技术、司法审查等方法的运用坚持刑法的独立性。具体行政行为对行政犯定罪的影响表现为作为入罪要素和作为出罪事由两方面。定罪过程中，应当审查具体行政行为的合法性，形式审查为基本方式，实质审查为例外。司法解释将行政处罚作为部分行政犯罪的入罪因素，有其合法性和合理性，但在具体规定上还要继续完善。违法的行政许可是否具有阻却犯罪的功能，应当以过错为基础区分特别许可和控制性许可区别对待。在行政犯罪的主观认定上，首先应明确行政犯罪过与行政违法的过错具有差异性。其次，行政犯罪的违法性认识是从可能性而非现实性角度而言，认识的内容以一般的法律规范而非刑法规范为宜。在违法性认识错误上，应区分行政法规认识错误和刑法认识错误、法律认识错误和事实认识错误、可避免的认识错误和不可避免的认识错误。在英美法系国家大量存在的严格责任犯罪，我国行政犯立法上并不存在，但从应然性上，可以在有限的行政犯罪领域引进相对严格责任。刑事司法在行政犯领域的介入应当适当，但目前我国的现状是介入不足与介入过度并存。适度介入可以从四个路径得以实现：实体法角度完善行政法规与刑法的衔接，变刑事司法解释事后备案为事前审查、刑法解释的双层解释之运用、价值评价的适当引入。
[Abstract]:In the process of conviction, administrative crime is bound to encounter problems and disputes that the traditional criminal (natural offense) has never encountered. First of all, administrative crime is widely used blank crime is facing the principle of legality torture. From the two levels of theoretical basis and practical need, there is no fundamental conflict between the legal democracy required by blank crime and the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a crime, the specificity and clarity, but there are many noticeable and improved aspects in our legislation. The biggest problem of blank crime in judicial practice lies in the scope and invocation of the preceding laws and regulations, which should strictly abide by the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a crime, and should be subject to judicial review. We should follow the rule of legal rank, the same rule of legal interest and the rule of invalidation of the legislation of delegation. Administrative offense is the premise of administrative illegality, and its conviction must go through the process from administrative illegality to criminal illegality, so the judgment of illegality is the core problem of administrative offense conviction. On the basis of the illegality theory of the continental law system, our country can apply illegality as an independent condition of the establishment of crime in the process of judicial conviction, but not describe it as the characteristics of crime. The judgment subject of administrative illegality should be the judicial organ, not the administrative organ, the standard of judgment should be the substantive standard rather than the standard of form, and the method of judgment should be multi-level rather than monistic. On the judgment of criminal illegality, under the theoretical framework of abating the monism of illegality, we should ensure its dependence on the administrative violation, and at the same time, we should use the explanation of terms, judicial exclusion technology, The application of judicial review and other methods adhere to the independence of criminal law. The influence of specific administrative act on the conviction of administrative offense is manifested in two aspects: as the element of incrimination and as the cause of crime. In the process of conviction, the legality of specific administrative act should be examined, the formal examination is the basic way, and the substantive examination is the exception. Judicial explanation regards administrative punishment as the factor of incriminating part of administrative crime, which has its legitimacy and rationality, but it should be perfected in specific provisions. Whether the illegal administrative license has the function of preventing crime should distinguish between special license and controlling license on the basis of fault. In the subjective cognizance of administrative crime, we should first make clear that the fault of administrative crime is different from that of administrative crime. Secondly, the recognition of illegality of administrative crime is from the angle of possibility rather than reality, and the content of cognition should be based on general legal norms rather than criminal law norms. In illegality, we should distinguish between administrative law and criminal law, law and fact, which can be avoided and unavoidable. There are a large number of strict liability crimes in Anglo-American law system countries, but the relative strict liability can be introduced in the limited administrative crime field. The intervention of criminal judicature in the field of administrative offense should be appropriate, but the present situation of our country is that insufficient intervention and excessive intervention coexist. Moderate intervention can be realized from four ways: perfecting the connection between administrative regulations and criminal law from the perspective of substantive law, changing criminal judicial interpretation into prior examination, applying double interpretation of criminal law interpretation, and introducing appropriate value evaluation.
【学位授予单位】：上海交通大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.1

【参考文献】