發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-06-17 01:57

  本文選題：選擇性罪名 + 數(shù)額犯�。� 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：自現(xiàn)行刑法實(shí)施以來(lái)，，生產(chǎn)、銷售偽劣產(chǎn)品罪一直備受實(shí)務(wù)界和理論界的關(guān)注。關(guān)于該罪的金額以及有關(guān)的犯罪形態(tài)、量刑方面的問(wèn)題始終是司法實(shí)務(wù)界和刑法理論界爭(zhēng)相探討和研究的熱點(diǎn)問(wèn)題。盡管對(duì)于本罪的關(guān)注度一直很高，最高人民法院和最高人民檢察院在2001年至2010年之間多次對(duì)有關(guān)本罪的金額和其他相關(guān)問(wèn)題作出了司法解釋。但是，令人感到遺憾的是，關(guān)于本罪的金額及相關(guān)問(wèn)題一直沒(méi)有得到徹底的、有效的解決。 立法上選擇性罪名與罪狀中“銷售金額”的矛盾性規(guī)定使得本罪在立法上存在著嚴(yán)重的邏輯錯(cuò)誤，立法對(duì)“銷售金額”的規(guī)定使得生產(chǎn)偽劣產(chǎn)品的行為處于一種尷尬的地位。此外按照傳統(tǒng)的數(shù)額犯理論的觀點(diǎn)，銷售金額5萬(wàn)元是本罪的構(gòu)成要件，不具備此要件的不構(gòu)成犯罪。因此對(duì)于本罪只有犯罪成立與否的問(wèn)題，而不存在犯罪形態(tài)的問(wèn)題。但是“兩高”頒布的相關(guān)司法解釋卻以“貨值金額”作為認(rèn)定本罪未遂的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，“貨值金額”的規(guī)定雖然解決了實(shí)踐中存在的因沒(méi)有銷售金額而不能認(rèn)定生產(chǎn)性行為為犯罪的情況，但是其本身也產(chǎn)生一系列的問(wèn)題。該規(guī)定不僅對(duì)傳統(tǒng)的數(shù)額犯沒(méi)有犯罪中止形態(tài)的觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)行了否定，引起了本罪是否存在未遂的爭(zhēng)論，而且?guī)��?lái)了一系列實(shí)踐問(wèn)題，首先它可能導(dǎo)致本罪中同一犯罪行為可以進(jìn)行不同犯罪形態(tài)的評(píng)價(jià)，即對(duì)于因生產(chǎn)行為導(dǎo)致的貨值金額既可以評(píng)價(jià)為生產(chǎn)的既遂，也可以評(píng)價(jià)為銷售的未遂，從而導(dǎo)致犯罪形態(tài)評(píng)價(jià)上的混亂；其次貨值金額認(rèn)定犯罪未遂的規(guī)定使得本罪的既遂和未遂不具有同一評(píng)價(jià)性；再次，對(duì)于犯罪未遂，我國(guó)的處罰原則是比照既遂進(jìn)行處罰，但是司法解釋對(duì)貨值金額計(jì)算方法的規(guī)定使得未遂無(wú)法參照既遂的相關(guān)檔次來(lái)適用。另外由此引發(fā)的另一個(gè)量刑上的問(wèn)題也是值得我們深思的——司法解釋已經(jīng)將犯罪未遂設(shè)置了較既遂高的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，那么本罪對(duì)未遂的處罰還有必要再適用總則第23條的規(guī)定嗎？司法實(shí)踐中的做法實(shí)際上是對(duì)本罪的未遂采用了雙重從輕的處理方法，這顯然是不符合刑法的總體精神的。法律規(guī)定的不完善和司法工作者在解讀法律文件中的個(gè)人主觀因素的傾向使得量刑的畸輕畸重、不平衡性的現(xiàn)象成為不可避免的問(wèn)題。諸如此類的法律疏漏和空白都將使得本罪在適用中出現(xiàn)混亂的局面。 本文前兩部分以現(xiàn)有的關(guān)于本罪的部分案例作為研究對(duì)象，以司法實(shí)踐中存在的以上諸多問(wèn)題為切入點(diǎn)，探求問(wèn)題產(chǎn)生的原因，并且在分析研究的基礎(chǔ)上于文章最后一部分對(duì)數(shù)額犯存在未遂進(jìn)行了論證，并提出了立法修改建議，呼吁制定針對(duì)本罪的具有普適性的司法解釋等內(nèi)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.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 狄世深;生產(chǎn)、銷售偽劣產(chǎn)品罪新探[J];廣西大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2003年02期

2 童偉華;數(shù)額犯若干問(wèn)題研究[J];華僑大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2001年04期

3 于志剛;;關(guān)于數(shù)額犯未遂問(wèn)題的反思[J];刑法論叢;2010年01期

4 趙秉志;論制售假冒偽劣商品犯罪的刑法抗制[J];河南省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2002年02期

5 夏陽(yáng);陳忠林;朱建華;王勇;曾慶云;彭沖;羅欣;李和杰;張紅良;喻海軍;;非法銷售煙草專賣品案件如何適用法律[J];人民檢察;2011年18期

本文編號(hào)：2029097