论食品监管渎职罪的司法认定

发布时间：2018-07-02 14:01

本文选题：食品监管渎职罪 + 犯罪构成要件　；参考：《西南政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：近年来，我国食品安全事故不断发生，造成食品安全事故的原因是多方面的，其中一个重要原因在于食品监管部门渎职行为，为了更加有效的打击食品安全领域的渎职犯罪，《刑法修正案（八）》将其从普通渎职罪中单列出来。但是由于食品监管渎职罪设立不久，司法实践中对本罪的认定还存在分歧，本文对食品监管渎职罪司法认定中存在的疑难或争议问题进行探讨，以期为司法实践提供有益的参考。本文主要分为以下三个部分第一部分是提出食品监管渎职罪司法实践中存在的问题，从司法实践中两个案例在认定中引发的争议入手，进而归纳出实践中本罪存在的争议或疑难问题。第二部分是食品监管渎职罪构成要件争议或疑难问题分析。首先阐述本罪主体所具特征和司法中应如何认定，主张应采职务论而非身份论认定本罪主体，只有负责食品监管职责的主管领导和具体责任人员才可构成本罪主体。然后论述了何为“重大食品安全事故”、“其他严重后果”，按2012年相关司法解释应按普通渎职罪定罪标准认定本罪结果。还分析了本罪的因果关系应采相当因果关系说结合具体情况分析认定。第三部分是食品监管渎职罪与相关罪联系及罪数认定。食品监管渎职罪与滥用职权罪和玩忽职守罪是特别法与普通法关系，只能特别法优先适用。当负责食品监管的国家机关工作人员因徇私对发现的制售不安全或有毒有害食品犯罪不立案、不处罚、不禁止或不移送造成本罪的后果时除触犯本罪外还会触犯放纵制售伪劣商品罪，属想象竞合犯应从一重罪定处。当行政执法机关工作人员也系食品监管人员、被监管人已构成犯罪不查处移交司法机关时，，可能同时触犯本罪和徇私舞弊不移交刑事案件罪，定性要看其是一行为还是数行为，如为一行为同时触犯二罪系属想象竞合犯，从一重罪定处；如系数行为触犯二罪则应数罪并罚。行为人受贿后渎职应数罪并罚,行为人一行为触犯本罪同时又构成被监管人共犯的，从一重罪定处。行为人数行为触犯本罪又构成被监管人共犯或其他罪的，应数罪并罚。要认定行为人构成被监管人的共犯，行为人不只是明知被监管人有违法行为，还要求其与被监管人共同谋划如何制售不安全食品或有毒有害食品，或在其制售既遂以前与被监管人共同谋划如何逃避查处，甚至入股分成等。
[Abstract]:In recent years, food safety accidents have occurred continuously in our country. There are many reasons for food safety accidents. One of the important reasons is the malfeasance of food supervision departments. In order to combat dereliction of duty in the field of food safety more effectively, the Criminal Law Amendment (8) lists it separately from the common crime of malfeasance. However, due to not long after the establishment of the malfeasance crime of food supervision, there are still differences in the identification of this crime in judicial practice. This paper discusses the problems or disputes existing in the judicial determination of the malfeasance crime of food supervision. In order to provide a useful reference for judicial practice. This paper is divided into the following three parts: the first part is to put forward the problems existing in the judicial practice of malfeasance of food supervision, starting with the dispute caused by the two cases in judicial practice. And then summed up the practice of this crime in dispute or difficult problems. The second part is the analysis of the elements of food supervision malfeasance. First of all, it expounds the characteristics of the subject of the crime and how to determine it in the administration of justice, and advocates that the subject of the crime should be determined by the theory of duty rather than the theory of identity. Only the competent leaders and specific responsible persons in charge of the responsibility of food supervision can constitute the subject of this crime. Then it discusses what is "major food safety accident" and "other serious consequences". According to the relevant judicial interpretation in 2012, the result of this crime should be determined according to the standard of common malfeasance conviction. It also analyzes the causality of this crime should adopt the equivalent causality theory combined with the specific situation analysis. The third part is the relationship between the malfeasance of food supervision and related crimes and the determination of the number of crimes. Malfeasance, abuse of power and dereliction of duty in food supervision are the relationship between special law and common law, and only special law can be applied first. When a functionary of a state organ in charge of food supervision fails to file a case for crimes found to be unsafe or poisonous or harmful to the production and sale of food for personal gain, he shall not be punished, If the consequences of this crime are not prohibited or transferred, it will also commit the crime of indulging in the manufacture and sale of fake and inferior commodities. When the staff of the administrative law enforcement organ is also a food supervisor and the supervised person has constituted a crime and has not been investigated and handed over to the judicial organ, he may simultaneously commit this crime and commit favoritism and not transfer the criminal case to the criminal case. The nature of the case depends on whether it is an act or a number of acts. If it is an imaginary joint crime to commit two crimes at the same time for one act, it shall be punished as a felony; if the coefficient act is a second crime, it shall be punished in combination with a number of crimes. The perpetrator should be punished for dereliction of duty after taking bribes. If the actor commits this crime and constitutes an accomplice of the supervised person, he shall be punished by a felony. If the number of acts violates this crime and constitutes an accomplice of the supervised person or any other crime, the offender shall be punished with several crimes. To determine that the perpetrator constitutes an accomplice of the supervised person, the perpetrator not only knows that the supervised person has committed an illegal act, but also requires him to plan with the supervised person how to prepare and sell unsafe food or toxic and harmful food, Or in its production and sale before the joint plan with the regulators how to avoid prosecution, or even share shares.
【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】