寻衅滋事罪情节犯的属性认定与限缩适用探究——以拟制抽象危险犯为视角切入

发布时间：2018-10-19 14:46

【摘要】：寻衅滋事罪中以"情节恶劣"或"情节严重"为规定模式的情节犯是该罪适用的主要模糊之处。两高司法解释对情节的认定虽看似明确,但却存在与立法规定属性的偏差,造成法益不一和适用扩张问题,需回溯危险犯教义学原理解决。基于对社会秩序法益和情节属性的辨析,寻衅滋事罪情节犯应属抽象危险犯;进一步由于存在规范拟制与行为实存的危险属性差异,其应属拟制抽象危险犯:需以拟制社会秩序危险与实存个体法益危险的双重危险标准入罪,并可基于"无具体法益危险"与"履行规范注意义务"的出罪机制合理限制该情节犯的适用。而"情节恶劣"或"情节严重"为两种出罪机制提供了规定合理性空间。
[Abstract]:In the crime of provoking trouble, the main ambiguity of the crime is that the circumstances are defined by the mode of "aggravated" or "serious". Although the determination of the circumstances of the two high judicial interpretations seems to be clear, but there is a deviation from the nature of the legislative provisions, resulting in different legal interests and the application of the expansion of the problem, it is necessary to trace back to the doctrine of dangerous offenders to solve. Based on the analysis of the legal benefits of social order and the attributes of the circumstances, the circumstances of the crime of provoking and causing trouble should be classified as abstract dangerous crimes, and further, due to the existence of the difference of the dangerous attributes between the normative fiction and the actual existence of the behavior, It should belong to fictitious abstract dangerous crime: it should be criminalized by the double dangerous standard of fictitious danger of social order and danger of actual individual legal interests. And can reasonably limit the application of the circumstances based on the crime mechanism of "no specific legal interest danger" and "fulfilling the duty of care". But "the circumstances are bad" or "the plot is serious" has provided the stipulation reasonable space for the two kinds of crime mechanism.
【作者单位】：东南大学法学院;
【基金】：中央高校科研费资助的东南大学优青项目(编号:2242014R30017)的成果
【分类号】：D924.3

【参考文献】