生产、销售伪劣产品罪金额问题研究

发布时间：2018-06-17 01:57

本文选题：选择性罪名 + 数额犯　；参考：《西南政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：自现行刑法实施以来，，生产、销售伪劣产品罪一直备受实务界和理论界的关注。关于该罪的金额以及有关的犯罪形态、量刑方面的问题始终是司法实务界和刑法理论界争相探讨和研究的热点问题。尽管对于本罪的关注度一直很高，最高人民法院和最高人民检察院在2001年至2010年之间多次对有关本罪的金额和其他相关问题作出了司法解释。但是，令人感到遗憾的是，关于本罪的金额及相关问题一直没有得到彻底的、有效的解决。立法上选择性罪名与罪状中“销售金额”的矛盾性规定使得本罪在立法上存在着严重的逻辑错误，立法对“销售金额”的规定使得生产伪劣产品的行为处于一种尴尬的地位。此外按照传统的数额犯理论的观点，销售金额5万元是本罪的构成要件，不具备此要件的不构成犯罪。因此对于本罪只有犯罪成立与否的问题，而不存在犯罪形态的问题。但是“两高”颁布的相关司法解释却以“货值金额”作为认定本罪未遂的标准，“货值金额”的规定虽然解决了实践中存在的因没有销售金额而不能认定生产性行为为犯罪的情况，但是其本身也产生一系列的问题。该规定不仅对传统的数额犯没有犯罪中止形态的观点进行了否定，引起了本罪是否存在未遂的争论，而且带来了一系列实践问题，首先它可能导致本罪中同一犯罪行为可以进行不同犯罪形态的评价，即对于因生产行为导致的货值金额既可以评价为生产的既遂，也可以评价为销售的未遂，从而导致犯罪形态评价上的混乱；其次货值金额认定犯罪未遂的规定使得本罪的既遂和未遂不具有同一评价性；再次，对于犯罪未遂，我国的处罚原则是比照既遂进行处罚，但是司法解释对货值金额计算方法的规定使得未遂无法参照既遂的相关档次来适用。另外由此引发的另一个量刑上的问题也是值得我们深思的——司法解释已经将犯罪未遂设置了较既遂高的标准，那么本罪对未遂的处罚还有必要再适用总则第23条的规定吗？司法实践中的做法实际上是对本罪的未遂采用了双重从轻的处理方法，这显然是不符合刑法的总体精神的。法律规定的不完善和司法工作者在解读法律文件中的个人主观因素的倾向使得量刑的畸轻畸重、不平衡性的现象成为不可避免的问题。诸如此类的法律疏漏和空白都将使得本罪在适用中出现混乱的局面。本文前两部分以现有的关于本罪的部分案例作为研究对象，以司法实践中存在的以上诸多问题为切入点，探求问题产生的原因，并且在分析研究的基础上于文章最后一部分对数额犯存在未遂进行了论证，并提出了立法修改建议，呼吁制定针对本罪的具有普适性的司法解释等内容。
[Abstract]:Since the implementation of the current criminal law, the crime of producing and selling fake and inferior products has attracted much attention from the practical and theoretical circles. The amount of the crime and the related crime form, the question of sentencing has always been a hot issue in the judicial practice and the criminal law theorists. The people's court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate have made judicial interpretations of the amount of the crime and other related issues between 2001 and 2010. However, it is regrettable that the amount of the crime and the related issues have not been thoroughly and effectively solved.
The contradiction between the legislative selective charges and the "sales amount" in the crime makes the crime serious logical error in the legislation. The legislation on the "sales amount" makes the production of fake and inferior products in an awkward position. In addition, according to the traditional theory of the amount offense, 50 thousand yuan is the crime. The constitution of the crime does not constitute a crime. Therefore, the question of whether the crime is established only or not, there is no question of the form of the crime. But the relevant judicial interpretations issued by the "two highs" are the standard for the attempted crime of identifying the crime by "value of the value of goods", and the provisions of "value of goods" have solved the existence of the crime. Because there is no sales amount, it can not be identified as a crime of productive behavior, but it also has a series of problems. It not only negates the view that the traditional amount has not been suspended in the form of a crime, but has caused an argument about the attempted crime, but it brings a series of practical problems. First, it may lead to a series of problems. In this crime, the same criminal act can be evaluated in different forms of crime, that is, the value of the value of the goods caused by the production behavior can be evaluated both the accomplishment of the production and the attempted sale of the crime, which leads to the confusion in the evaluation of the crime form; secondly, the provisions of the value of the value of the goods to determine the attempted crime of the crime make the accomplishment of the crime and the accomplishment of the crime. The attempt does not have the same evaluation; thirdly, for the attempted crime, the principle of punishment in our country is to punish the accomplished offense, but the provision of the calculation method of the value of the value of the value of the value of the judicial interpretation makes it impossible to refer to the related grade of the accomplished accomplishment. The judicial interpretation has set up a higher standard of accomplishment than attempted crime, so is it necessary to apply the twenty-third provisions of the general principles to the punishment of the attempted crime? The practice in judicial practice is actually a double and light treatment of the attempted crime, which is obviously not in accordance with the general spirit of the criminal law. The tendency of perfection and judicial workers to interpret the subjective factors in legal documents makes the imbalances of sentencing and the phenomenon of imbalances become inevitable. Such legal omissions and blanks will make the crime in a chaotic situation.
In the first two parts of this paper, taking some of the existing cases of the crime as the research object, taking the problems above in the judicial practice as the breakthrough point, this paper explores the causes of the problem, and on the basis of the analysis and research, the final part of the article has demonstrated the attempted amount of the amount of crime, and proposed the legislative amendment suggestions and appealed to the system. There are universal judicial interpretations for this crime.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.3

【参考文献】