刑法中的类推解释问题研究

发布时间：2018-10-30 08:42

【摘要】：类推，又被称为类推适用，是指根据事物之间的类似性得出推出某一事物的道理同样适用于推出其他事物的道理。类推思维和类推解释是类推的两种表现形式。类推思维具有惯常性，与刑法解释之间具有密切关系。一方面，刑法解释是以类推思维为基础的，刑法解释往往采用类似性思维，，通过比较法律规范用语得出解释结论，但以类推思维得出的结论必须在法律规范条文的可能文义范围内。另一方面，类推解释与其他解释的区别标准是刑法解释是否超出可能文义范围，罪刑法定原则禁止类推解释，然而，不禁止类推思维。大多数国家刑法都明确规定了罪刑法定原则，故明确禁止类推解释。之所以如此，是因为类推解释超出了刑法用语的含义范围，意味着刑罚权的滥用，构成了对个人权利的侵犯，损害了刑法的安定性，同时侵犯了立法权。罪刑法定原则下的禁止类推解释的发展经历了从禁止一切类推解释到禁止不利于被告人的类推解释和禁止超出刑法用语含义范围的类推解释的。现代各国刑法及刑法理论均允许有利于被告人的类推解释和禁止超出刑法用语含义范围的类推解释。允许的类推解释，即有限制的类推解释，是指对刑法规范做出超出刑法用语含义范围，但是对被告人有利的解释。允许的类推解释不仅符合罪刑法定原则通过限制刑罚权来保障人权的基本要求，而且有利于实现刑法的谦抑性价值目标。然而，允许的类推解释需具备三个条件：一是应当有利于被告人；二是存在有利于被告人的情形；三是允许类推解释的对象与被推及的刑法规范的条文内容具有类似性。允许有利于被告人的类推的基本原理在于处罚的妥当性，其具体操作应当遵循三个步骤：第一，应当确认刑法存在漏洞；第二，寻找与事实案件情形类似的刑法规范条文；第三，确认案件事实与法律事实之间的类型性。类推解释与扩张解释都是对刑法用语的含义进行扩张，但由于类推解释通过超出刑法用语含义范围的方法扩张刑法用语的含义，故被罪刑法定原则禁止，而扩张解释是在刑法用语的含义范围内做出超出通常含义的解释，故罪刑法定原则不禁止。类推解释与目的解释都从刑法的法益保护目的出发对刑法用语进行解释，但由于类推解释通过做出超出刑法用语含义范围的方法来保护法益，故被罪刑法定原则禁止，而目的解释是以保护法益为目的在刑法用语的含义范围内来寻求刑法用语的真实含义，故罪刑法定原则不禁止。
[Abstract]:Analogies, also called analogies, refer to the reasoning of inferring a certain thing according to the similarity between things, which is also applicable to the introduction of other things. Analogy thinking and analogy explanation are two forms of analogy. The analogy thought has the habituation, and has the close relation with the criminal law explanation. On the one hand, the interpretation of criminal law is based on analogies, and the interpretation of criminal law often adopts analogous thinking and draws the conclusion by comparing the terms of legal norms. But the conclusion reached by analogy thinking must be within the scope of the possible meaning of the legal norm. On the other hand, the difference standard between analogy interpretation and other interpretations is whether criminal law interpretation is beyond the scope of possible meaning, and the principle of legally prescribed punishment forbids analogy interpretation, however, analogy thinking is not prohibited. The principle of legally prescribed punishment for a crime is clearly stipulated in most national criminal laws, so analogies are prohibited. The reason is that the analogy interpretation is beyond the scope of the meaning of criminal law, which means that the abuse of criminal power constitutes an infringement of individual rights, damages the stability of criminal law, and infringes the legislative power at the same time. The development of prohibition analogy interpretation under the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a crime has experienced from prohibiting all analogy interpretation to prohibiting analogizing interpretation against the accused and prohibiting analogy interpretation beyond the meaning of criminal law. Both the modern criminal law and the theory of criminal law allow the analogies to be interpreted in favor of the accused and to prohibit analogies beyond the meaning of the terms of criminal law. The permitted analogical interpretation, that is, the limited analogy interpretation, refers to the interpretation of the criminal law norms beyond the scope of the meaning of the criminal law terms, but beneficial to the accused. The allowable analogies not only accord with the basic requirements of protecting human rights by restricting the right of punishment, but also benefit the realization of the modest value goal of criminal law. However, the permitted analogical interpretation should have three conditions: first, it should be beneficial to the defendant; second, there is a situation in favor of the defendant; third, the object of the allowed analogy interpretation is similar to the content of the provisions of the criminal law norm. The basic principle of permitting analogies in favor of the accused lies in the appropriateness of punishment, and its concrete operation should follow three steps: first, the existence of loopholes in criminal law should be confirmed; Third, confirm the typology between the facts of the case and the legal facts. The analogy interpretation and the expansion interpretation are both expanding the meaning of the criminal law terms, but because the analogy interpretation expands the meaning of the criminal law terms through the method beyond the scope of the meaning of the criminal law terms, it is prohibited by the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a crime. Expansion interpretation is an interpretation beyond the usual meaning within the meaning of criminal law terms, so the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a crime is not prohibited. The analogy interpretation and the purpose interpretation both interpret the criminal law terms from the purpose of the legal interest protection of the criminal law. However, the analogy interpretation is prohibited by the principle of legally prescribed punishment for the purpose of protecting the interests of the criminal law by making the method beyond the scope of the meaning of the criminal law. The purpose of interpretation is to seek the true meaning of criminal law terms within the scope of the meaning of criminal law terms, so the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a crime is not prohibited.
【学位授予单位】：河北大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D914

【参考文献】