發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-06-15 12:06

  本文選題：行政犯 + 空白罪狀��； 參考：《上海交通大學(xué)》2014年博士論文

【摘要】：行政犯的二次違法性特征決定了其在定罪過程中，必然遭遇傳統(tǒng)刑事犯（自然犯）不曾遇到的問題與爭議。首先，行政犯廣泛采用的空白罪狀即面臨罪刑法定原則的拷問。從理論依據(jù)和現(xiàn)實(shí)需要兩個(gè)層面分析，空白罪狀與罪刑法定原則所要求的法律民主性、專屬性和明確性之間不存在根本沖突，，但我國立法上卻有諸多值得注意和改進(jìn)之處�？瞻鬃餇钤谒痉▽�(shí)踐中的最大問題在于前置法規(guī)的范圍與援引，范圍上應(yīng)嚴(yán)格遵循罪刑法定原則，對較低位階的前置法規(guī)應(yīng)當(dāng)實(shí)行司法審查。在前置法規(guī)的援引上，應(yīng)當(dāng)遵循法律位階規(guī)則、法益同一規(guī)則和轉(zhuǎn)授權(quán)立法無效規(guī)則。 行政犯以行政違法性為前提，其定罪必須經(jīng)歷從行政違法到刑事違法的認(rèn)定過程，因此違法性判斷是行政犯定罪的核心問題。我國可以在借鑒大陸法系的違法性理論基礎(chǔ)之上，將違法性作為犯罪成立的一個(gè)獨(dú)立條件在司法定罪過程中得以適用，而不僅僅作為犯罪特征予以描述。行政犯的行政違法性的判斷主體應(yīng)為司法機(jī)關(guān)而非行政機(jī)關(guān)，判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)應(yīng)為實(shí)質(zhì)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)而非形式標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，判斷方法應(yīng)為多層次而非一元化。在刑事違法性判斷問題上，應(yīng)在緩和違法一元論的理論框架下，保證其對行政違法一定的依附性，同時(shí)又要通過用語解釋、司法排除技術(shù)、司法審查等方法的運(yùn)用堅(jiān)持刑法的獨(dú)立性。 具體行政行為對行政犯定罪的影響表現(xiàn)為作為入罪要素和作為出罪事由兩方面。定罪過程中，應(yīng)當(dāng)審查具體行政行為的合法性，形式審查為基本方式，實(shí)質(zhì)審查為例外。司法解釋將行政處罰作為部分行政犯罪的入罪因素，有其合法性和合理性，但在具體規(guī)定上還要繼續(xù)完善。違法的行政許可是否具有阻卻犯罪的功能，應(yīng)當(dāng)以過錯(cuò)為基礎(chǔ)區(qū)分特別許可和控制性許可區(qū)別對待。 在行政犯罪的主觀認(rèn)定上，首先應(yīng)明確行政犯罪過與行政違法的過錯(cuò)具有差異性。其次，行政犯罪的違法性認(rèn)識(shí)是從可能性而非現(xiàn)實(shí)性角度而言，認(rèn)識(shí)的內(nèi)容以一般的法律規(guī)范而非刑法規(guī)范為宜。在違法性認(rèn)識(shí)錯(cuò)誤上，應(yīng)區(qū)分行政法規(guī)認(rèn)識(shí)錯(cuò)誤和刑法認(rèn)識(shí)錯(cuò)誤、法律認(rèn)識(shí)錯(cuò)誤和事實(shí)認(rèn)識(shí)錯(cuò)誤、可避免的認(rèn)識(shí)錯(cuò)誤和不可避免的認(rèn)識(shí)錯(cuò)誤。在英美法系國家大量存在的嚴(yán)格責(zé)任犯罪，我國行政犯立法上并不存在，但從應(yīng)然性上，可以在有限的行政犯罪領(lǐng)域引進(jìn)相對嚴(yán)格責(zé)任。 刑事司法在行政犯領(lǐng)域的介入應(yīng)當(dāng)適當(dāng)，但目前我國的現(xiàn)狀是介入不足與介入過度并存。適度介入可以從四個(gè)路徑得以實(shí)現(xiàn)：實(shí)體法角度完善行政法規(guī)與刑法的銜接，變刑事司法解釋事后備案為事前審查、刑法解釋的雙層解釋之運(yùn)用、價(jià)值評價(jià)的適當(dāng)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.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海交通大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 劉仁文;刑法中的嚴(yán)格責(zé)任研究[J];比較法研究;2001年01期

2 劉艷紅;刑法類型化概念與法治國原則之哲理——兼論開放的構(gòu)成要件之存在根據(jù)[J];比較法研究;2003年03期

3 王天華;;行政行為公定力概念的源流——兼議我國公定力理論的發(fā)展進(jìn)路[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2010年03期

4 王恩海;;論我國刑法中的“違反國家規(guī)定”——兼論刑法條文的憲政意義[J];東方法學(xué);2010年01期

5 肖晚祥;;非法吸收公眾存款罪的司法認(rèn)定研究[J];東方法學(xué);2010年05期

6 羅許;;“嚴(yán)格責(zé)任”原則與中國環(huán)境犯罪[J];大連海事大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年02期

7 汪紅飛;;論空白刑法中補(bǔ)充規(guī)范的范圍——以重大責(zé)任事故罪為視角[J];太原師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2006年06期

8 張明楷;注重體系解釋 實(shí)現(xiàn)刑法正義[J];法律適用;2005年02期

9 張明楷;;逃稅罪的處罰阻卻事由[J];法律適用;2011年08期

10 黃明儒;;限時(shí)刑法探究[J];法商研究;2008年01期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 吳允鋒;經(jīng)濟(jì)犯罪規(guī)范解釋的基本原理[D];華東政法大學(xué);2008年

2 李濤;違法性認(rèn)識(shí)的中國語境展開[D];吉林大學(xué);2010年

本文編號：2021952