【作者】 于雪婷；

【导师】 李洁；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 刑法学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 受贿罪是一种典型的职务犯罪,其作为腐败的一种主要表现形式,严重损害国家工作人员职务行为的廉洁性。受贿行为人不仅背离了为政清廉的义务,而且其行为严重腐蚀了国家肌体,损害了党和政府在人民群众中公正严明的形象,降低国民对政府行为的信任程度,危害了社会主义经济的发展和国家的长治久安,历来是我党反腐倡廉的重点打击对象,更是刑法这一利器所打击的重点。然而,虽然我国刑法对受贿罪规定了严厉的惩罚措施,但作为一种具有隐蔽特点的犯罪,在我国由计划经济向市场经济转变的社会转型时期,贿赂犯罪仍呈蔓延之势,其中缘由十分复杂,但法定刑设计上的缺陷不能不说是个重要原因。近年来全国范围内又掀起了新一轮打击职务犯罪的浪潮,官陷囹圄又成为人们热议的话题,案件的处理结果更是备受关注。然而,民众对案件处理结果的不解和质疑声却此起彼伏,究其原因,是由于很多案件情节相似但判决结果差异很大,或情节差异很大,但处理结果大同小异,在普通民众看来,的确是一件让人费解的事情。应该看到,从现行刑法实行以来,我国刑法学界对受贿罪已经进行了深入细致的研究,也发表了不少关于受贿罪犯罪构成特征及其司法认定的好文章,将对这一问题的探讨提高到了相当的理论高度,为司法实践提供了可操作性强的标准。但是,笔者也发现,从现今有关受贿罪的研究成果来看,其中的绝大多数并未涉及到该罪法定刑设置的正当性问题,更谈不上对之进行深刻反思,这不能不让笔者联想到我国刑法学研究中“重犯罪、轻刑罚”的不均衡现象。基于理论研究与实践效果的双重需要,本文拟从我国受贿罪的法定刑分析入手,反思和检讨我国受贿罪法定刑设置所存在的不足,并提出相应的完善对策,以期能对我国受贿罪法定刑的完善有所裨益。全文共分四部分:第一部分是我国受贿罪法定刑的立法演进。受贿罪法定刑的立法变迁历经秦以前、汉代至清代;近代的民国时期、工农运动时期、工农民主政权时期、抗日战争和解放战争时期;新中国成立以后的建国初期、1979年《中华人民共和国刑法》实施期间和1997年《中华人民共和国刑法》实施至今的几大历史时期。可以说,受贿罪的发展演变几乎与中华民族文明的发展历史同龄。通过梳理受贿罪的立法演进,我们可以发现,将受贿罪比照贪污罪处罚的方式,是受到历史上将贪污受贿视为同类犯罪行为立法传统深远影响的结果。而且,我国古代在受贿罪的立法方面就有较为先进的经验,例如,《唐律》中对受贿行为方式、情节规定之周密以及视行为方式、主体之不同而分别设置法定刑的立法模式对于当今立法而言,仍具有极大的借鉴价值。第二部分是法定刑设置的原则与依据。该部分对相关基本理论展开深入探讨,并得出明确的结论,对本文涉及之具体问题的研究提供标准、依据及理论支撑。首先,要明确法定刑的概念。对此,学界有诸多主张。通过对比分析,笔者认为:法定刑存在于刑法分则及其他刑事法律中的分则性规范之中,而不仅仅存在于刑法分则之中;刑罚是设定法定刑的前提,法定刑是刑罚用于司法操作的具体化表现;法定刑应当包括刑种与刑度两部分;法定刑是针对各种犯罪行为而设定的,或说法定刑是针对特定犯罪行为而设定的,这两种说法均可,均无大的不妥。所以,法定刑的概念应为:刑法分则及其他刑事法律中的分则性规范对各种犯罪所规定的刑种与刑度的有机组合。其次,为明确法定刑与其他事物的本质区别,不可避免地要涉及特征问题。法定刑的特征至少应当包括法律明确规定性、与具体犯罪行为的社会危害程度相适应性、一定的空间性和层次性。再次,法定刑的设置必须遵循一定原则,法定刑设置的原则,是指立法者在确定罪名、衡量社会危害程度并明确罪刑关系、整合刑种与刑度过程中所要遵循的基本原则和指导思想。法定刑设置的原则应该包括哪些具体内容,学者们的主张不尽一致。笔者认为,应当包括明确性原则、均衡性原则和正义性原则。最后,法定刑设置的依据问题是全文的理论核心。可以说,社会危害性是法定刑设置的前提和依据。社会危害性是犯罪行为的客观危害和行为人主观责任的统一。然而,如何衡量犯罪行为的社会危害性?其评判的着眼点应当是什么?这在法定刑设置的立法技术上应当是首先需要解决的问题。笔者认为,犯罪客体是体现犯罪行为社会危害性大小的主要载体,这也是犯罪客体之重要功能的体现。犯罪客体的这种功效在犯罪的认定和法定刑的设置,即在司法和立法两个层面都能够得以充分的发挥。具体说来,犯罪客体对于很多犯罪行为的定性以及疑难案件的认定都有着不可替代的作用。同时,对于法定刑的设置而言,犯罪客体引领刑罚种类的选择和刑罚幅度的划分。究其根本原因,在于犯罪行为是行为人所实施的对犯罪客体造成损害或威胁的行为,而犯罪行为对客体所造成的损害或威胁,以及行为人的主观责任,都能够通过客体受到侵害的程度得以展现,因此说,犯罪客体是体现犯罪行为社会危害性的主要载体,即是法定刑设置的主要前提和依据。第三部分是以前提理论为支点,展开对我国受贿罪法定刑的反思。一是源于犯罪客体是法定刑设置的基础,而贪污罪与受贿罪的犯罪客体不同,那么各自法定刑的设置依据也应当有异,而受贿罪比照贪污罪处罚的做法使得对受贿罪处罚基础的定位发生了严重偏离。二是将受贿罪比照贪污罪处罚,意味着对受贿罪行为人的量刑,其主要依据是受贿所得财物的数额,受贿罪各档次法定刑子刑度的划分依据同样是受贿罪所得财物的数额。受贿罪的客体是职务行为的廉洁性(不可收买性),而受贿数额不是体现受贿行为对客体危害程度的主要因素,应是国家工作人员对其职务行为和职责的违背程度。除此之外,从实践中的情况来看,受贿罪的隐蔽性导致很多受贿财物的数额难以查实,司法人员疲于搜集受贿数额方面的证据,以受贿数额为主要的定罪量刑依据,不利于将非物质受贿之情形纳入到犯罪框架之中来,无形中缩小了受贿罪的打击范围。而且,金钱数额的实际价值易受到国民经济发展水平的影响,同样数额的金钱在不同历史时期的价值有很大差距,因此,将受贿财物的数额之角色定位为受贿罪的主要处罚标准,是缺乏科学性的做法,应予以摒弃。然而,收受财物的行为也是受贿罪的主要行为之一,收受的财物越多,反映出受贿人的贪念程度越深,主观恶性也会随之加重,所以在量刑上对受贿财物的数额也必须给予充分的考虑。三是关于受贿罪法定刑之刑种选置的反思。犯罪行为的危害程度与刑罚的严厉程度相对应。刑种的选择在很大程度上影响了刑罚的严厉程度。本部分合对各刑罚种类的基本设置模式现状的研析来谈受贿罪刑罚种类的选置存在的诸多问题。首先,目前我国受贿罪死刑设置的弊端之处是客观存在的,在为受贿罪设置单独法定刑时,如需继续保留死刑,必须充分考虑到死刑的总体发展趋势和我国对待死刑所应秉承的基本理念——在最大程度上限制死刑的适用。其次,就受贿罪自由刑的设置状况来说,死刑缓期两年执行的运作模式导致实践中死刑立即执行的压力增大;有期徒刑的十五年最高年限决定了无期徒刑和死刑的适用频率,进而影响整体刑罚制度的轻重程度;行政处分的存在对于轻微受贿行为来说是必要的,但是将其直接与剥夺人身自由的刑罚相衔接,这种处罚性质上的天地之差,还是给人以过渡不畅之感。同时,改造犯罪人的终极目的是使犯罪人能够顺利的回归社会,重新实现与社会的和谐共处。而在所有刑罚种类中,能够实现犯罪人与社会之亲密接触的,非管制莫属,但是管制在实践中的适用率却极低。因此,可以考虑在受贿罪的法定刑中增设管制刑。再次,刑种之间的搭配也存在问题。这种问题主要体现为中期有期徒刑(以五年有期徒刑为界限)与拘役、管制等刑种在同一法定刑层次中作以选择式规定,这样的规定在刑法分则中的数量非常之多。笔者认为,拘役、管制不宜与中长期有期徒刑规定在同一层次的法定刑之中,与短期有期徒刑(三年以下)搭配设置更具合理性和操作性。四是对受贿罪资格刑设置的反思。总体上来说,我国《刑法》资格刑应包括剥夺政治权利、驱逐出境和剥夺军衔三种。对于驱逐出境和剥夺军衔两项资格刑而言,并无实质问题,但剥夺政治权利一项却很具争议。笔者认为,“剥夺政治权利”这一名称已不合时宜。此外,剥夺政治权利的具体内容设定不合理、不全面,且适用范围有限。而现行受贿罪法定刑中资格刑缺失,宜针对其身份犯性质增加资格刑的设置。五是对受贿罪财产刑设置的反思。我国财产刑的其中一种形式是没收财产,具体又分为一般没收和特别没收。笔者认为,没收财产刑应当废除,全面代之以罚金刑,受贿罪也应增设罚金刑。六是对受贿罪法定刑幅度的反思。笔者认为,现行受贿罪法定刑中刑罚幅度的大幅度交叉,使得一些案件处理结果的合理性很难得到有力说明。划分刑罚幅度的依据同样是犯罪行为的社会危害性,而受贿罪人违背职务行为廉洁性之程度,即违背职责之程度,更宜作为衡量受贿罪社会危害性的主要标准,考虑到该标准之复杂性,笔者认为,可以考虑采用设置系列罪名的方式去解决既有刑罚幅度问题。七是对受贿罪量刑情节问题的反思。我国《刑法》中法定刑的特点之一是以情节的轻重作为法定刑幅度分档的标准。量刑情节不仅可以影响不同档次法定刑的划分,有些情节也会将同一档次的法定刑细分为两个小层次,例如受贿罪法定刑。而受贿罪法定刑中的这些情节,法定情节多数是概括式的规定方式,同时也包括“犯罪后有悔改表现,积极退赃”等酌定情节的具体标准。笔者认为,应进一步将一些酌定情节法定化、法定情节适当明确化,以便于司法操作和更接近于罪刑均衡之要求。第四部分是受贿罪之法定刑的立法完善。在法定刑设置的基本理论研究和对受贿罪法定刑中存在诸多问题予以反思的基础上,本部分,结合大陆法系、英美法系几个有代表性的国家,以及《联合国反腐败公约》和我国港澳台地区的域外立法经验,明确了我国刑罚观念的应然样态,并以此为指导,对受贿罪法定刑的设置提出具体的完善建议。通过对美国、德国、俄罗斯、日本、韩国和港澳台地区相关立法的了解,我们知道,绝大多数国家都将受贿罪的法定刑予以单独设置;且以数额为主要处罚标准的立法例除我国以外,几乎再无他例,通常不考虑受贿数额或仅将其作为量刑情节;在法定刑中,刑种以自由刑、罚金刑为主,资格刑的应用也较为广泛,刑期适中,且均不对受贿罪适用死刑;以行为人违背职责的程度作为主要处罚标准的立法例居多,不同程度、情形之下对应不同的罪名,并单独设置法定刑。结合我国受贿罪处罚的客观需要和司法实际情况,笔者提出如下具体完善建议:确立以受贿行为人违背职责义务之程度为主的处罚标准;增加罚金刑和管制刑的适用;合理增加资格刑的设置;决定刑罚幅度的量刑情节之规定进一步明确化;整合受贿罪罪名体系、在立法上单独设置受贿罪法定刑。更多还原

【Abstract】 The bribery crime is a typical crime by taking advantage of duty, as a major form of corruption, it brings serious damage to the honesty of public service personnel. However, while China’s criminal law provides severe penalties on crime of bribery, but as a crime of hidden features, in the period of social transition from a planned economy to a market economy in China, bribery crime continued to show a spreading trend. The reason is very complicated and the defects in design of the legal punishment can be said as an important reason. In recent years the country has set off a new round of fight against the wave of crimes, it becomes a hot topic again and the results of cases has been concerned. However, the public’s understanding of the the results of such cases and shows doubtful, the reason is that the circumstances of many cases are similar but the results become very different, or the circumstances vary widely, but the resultsare similar. In the general public view, this is indeed a puzzling thing.It should be noted that since the implementation of the existing criminal law, criminal law scholars has conducted in-depth and detailed study for taking bribes, explored this issue theory to a considerable height. provides a workable standard for the judicial practice. However, the author also found that, from research on the bribery, the vast majority did even not involve the setting of the punishment to the crime. this does make the author think of the phenominon of unbalance of China’s criminal law, "serious crime, light punishment". Based on the dual needs of theoretical research and practical effects, this paper is going to start from analyzing the legal punishment of the bribery crime in China, review the punishment to the crime of bribery the deficiencies in the legal punishment of bribery crime, and put forward the corresponding improvement countermeasures expecting it can be helpful to the improvement of China’s legal punishment of bribery crime. The whole text is divided into four parts:The first part is about our legislative evolution of legal punishment of the bribery crime. Punishment to the crime of bribery before the legislative changes after the Qin, Han Dynasty to the Qing Dynasty; modern Republic, during the movement of workers and peasants, workers and peasants democratic regime period, the Sino-Japanese War and the War of Liberation; beginning period of New China’s founding; In 1979, "Criminal Law of People Republic of China " in 1979 and 1997. The evolution of the crime of bribery is almost as the same ages as history of Chinese civilization. In ancient China the legislation of bribery crime had more advanced experience, for example, it was stipulated closely in "Tanglv" about the way of bribery, as well as the circumstances of accepting bribery and to set different legislative models according to the different behaviours and its actors. This is still of significantly great reference value to today’s legislation.The second part is the setting principles and basis of legal punishment. This part is going to in-depth discussionof the basic theories related, and to draw definitive conclusions. First, the concept of punishment should be confirmed. In response, academics have a lot of ideas. Through comparative analysis, the author believes that: punishment exists in not only criminal law and in some other sub-norms stipulations. Criminal Law is the premise of legal punishment while legal punishment is the concrete representation of criminal punishment. Legal punishment should include two parts: the kinds of punishments and punishment degree. Legal punishment is set for a variety of criminal acts, or that legal punishment is set for a specific criminal acts, the two kind of argument can be, no great wrong. Therefore, the concept of legal punishment should be: the combination of criminal law and criminal law in the other sub-norms of the criminal provisions of various kinds of crimes and punishments Second, characteristics of the punishment should include at least clear provisions of the law, being adapt to specific criminal acts, a certain space and hierarchy. Third, setting of the punishment must follow certain principles, is that determining the charges of legislator, measurement of social harm of crime and a clear relationship between the degree of sentence types to be followed during the basic principles and guidelines. Punishment to the principles setting should include the specific content of the scholars’ ideas are not consistent. What are the content of setting legal punishment? In my opinion, it should include a clear principle, the principle of proportionality and the principle of justice. Finally, basic of setting punishment is the theory core of the whole article. It can be said that social harm is the premise and basis of setting punishment. Social harm is the integration of objective crime and the actor’s subjective responsibility. However, how to measure the social harm of crime? Where should the evaluation aim from? This legislation is technically set in the legal punishment should be the first issue to be resolved. The author believes that the object of the crime is the main carrier of social harm, and the embodiment of the important functions. The effects of the object of crime play an important role in both legislation and judical. Specifically speaking, the object of a crime has an irreplaceable role for many crimes, and the qualitative identification of difficult cases. At the same time, for the setting of legal punishment lead the type of penalty choice and the division of the penalty range. The fundamental reason is that criminal behavior is the perpetrator of the implementation of the object of criminal damage or threatening behavior, and the perpetrator’s subjective responsibility, which can all be reflected by the crime object’s violated degree, so that the object of the crime reflects the social harm of criminal behavior and it is the main carrier of social harm, it is the main premise and basis of setting legal punishment.The third part is based on the premise of the theory as a fulcrum to start the punishment to the crime of bribery of our reflection. First, the object of crime is the basis of setting the legal punishment. But the objective of bribery crime and corruption crime, and the basis of setting these crimes should be different. The second is to compare bribery crime with corruption crime means that the sentencing of bribery perpetrators, based primarily on the amount of property received. The object of the crime of bribery is the integrity of official conduct (can not be bought), and the amount of bribery can not directly show the degree of being harmful to the society. It is the national staff who go against their duties and responsibilities. In addition, from a practical point of view, the hidden nature of the crime of bribery makes it difficult to verify the amount of property of taking bribes. Judicial officers are tired to collect the evidence of calculating the amount of bribes so that making the amount of taking bribes as the main basis for the conviction and sentencing. Which is not conducive to the case of non-material bribery into the framework of crime, virtually reduced the scope of bribery. Moreover, the real value of the amount of money is vulnerable to the impact of national economic development, the same amount of money in different historical periods have very different values, so making the amount of bribes taken as the main punishment standard lacks of scientific approach and it should be abandoned. However, the behavior of receiving property is also one of the main act crime of bribery. The more the property accepted, it can reflect the extent of bribery greed deeper. So the sentencing on bribery in the amount of property must also be given full consideration. The third is about the reflection on criminal bribery species of legal punishment. The severity of harmful levels corresponds to the crime punishment. To choose Kinds of punishment has largely influenced the severity of the penalty. This section analyses various types of penalties with the basic setting mode to talk about a few problems existing in choosing penalties. First, there are drawbacks objectively existed in the current death penalty of bribery crime in China. When setting in a separate legal punishment for the crime of bribery, if it continues to retain the death penalty, death penalty must be fully taken into account the overall development trends and China’s treatment of the death penalty should be adhering to the basic idea - limit the death penalty to the maximum extent . Second, the death penalty suspended for two years of operation led to the pressure of practice of the death penalty immediately increased; the maximum length of imprisonment of fifteen years and life imprisonment determines the frequency of application of the death penalty, thereby affecting the overall severity of the penal system; the existence of administrative sanctions for minor bribery is necessary, but putting it directly connected with the penalty of deprivation of liberty, the difference between this punishment is heaven and earth and makes people uncomfortable. Meanwhile, the transformation of the perpetrator’s ultimate purpose is to enable offenders to successfully return to society, to re-achieve harmony with society. And in all types of penalties, the offender can be achieved in close contact with the society, no other than the non-control, but the application of control in practice is very low. Therefore, we can consider to add an additional punishment to control criminal. Again, the match between the kinds of punishment is also with problem. This problem is mainly reflected in the medium-term imprisonment (up to five years in prison for the boundaries) and criminal detention. Such provisions in the criminal law has a very large number. In my opinion, criminal detention, control should not be provided with long-term imprisonment among the same level of legal punishment, it will be more reasonable and practical to combine with short-term imprisonment (three years). The fourth is to think about the qualifications of bribery crime. Generally speaking, in China’s "Criminal Law" Criminal qualifications should include deprivation of political rights, deportation and deprivation of rank. For deportation and deprivation of rank this two qualifications punishment, there are no substancial problems, but a deprivation of political rights is very controversial. The author believes that "deprivation of political rights," the name is no longer appropriate. In addition, the specific content of deprivation of political rights set unreasonable, incomplete, and limited in scope. There is a lack of qualification punishment in the current legal punishment status of criminal bribery. It should be increased for the nature of their status as criminal offenders settings. Fifth, to reflect on setting criminal property punishment of bribery crime. China’s property punishment is one form of criminal forfeiture of property, also divided into general confiscation and special confiscation. I believe that the criminal forfeiture of property should be abolished, replaced by a comprehensive criminal fines. Fifth, it is about the reflection of the magnitude of punishment to the bribery crime. I believe that the current penalty by accepting bribes in the range of punishment to a substantial cross makes some results of cases unreasonable. The basis of dividing punishment amplitude is also social harmness, and the degree of the bribery offender’s against the official conduct is more appropriate to be considered as a main standard of judging social harm of bribery crime. Taking into account the complexity of this standard , I believe that the charges could be considered to set series that is the way to solve the problem of penalty rate. The sixth is the crime of bribery sentencing reflections on the issue. One of the features of legal punishment in China’s "Criminal Law" is to measure the severity of the punishment by seeing the circumstance of the crime. Circumstance for sentencing can not only affect the division of different grades, some episodes of the same grade of punishment will be subdivided into two small levels, such as punishment to the crime of bribery. These circumstances of the punishment to the crime of bribery, most of the statutory circumstances are summarized provisions included with "repent after committing a crime, and actively ill-gotten gains" and other discretionary circumstances of specific criteria. In my opinion, some circumstances should be legalized and statutory circumstances should be appropriate explicit. In order to facilitate the operation and administration of justice closer to the requirements of the balance balance between crime and punishment.The fourth part is the punishment to the crime of bribery Legislation. After the research on the basic theory of legal punishment of bribery crime and the problem existing in the legal punishment, this section will combine a few representative countries of Continental Legal System and Anglo-American law system, and "United Nations Convention against Corruption" and Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan region of China’s legislative experience, a clear concept of our penalty ought to be state, and as guidance for setting the punishment to the crime of bribery to make specific suggestions for improvement. Through the understanding of the relevant legislation in the United States, Germany, Russia, Japan, South Korea and Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan region, we know that the vast majority of countries will set the legal punishment of bribery crime separately, and only China makes the amount of taken bribes as the major penalties to the enactment of legislation in legal punishment. In the legal punishment imprisonment and fine punishment are main methods, applications are eligible for a sentence more widely, medium term of penalty and it does not apply the death penalty; using perpetrator of breach of duty to varying degrees as the main punishment standards of legislation is the majority, corresponding to different charges, and set up a separate legal punishment. With the objective need and judicial reality of China’s punishment of the crime of bribery, I made the following specific suggestions for improvement: establishing a standard to sentence a crime according the extent of the duties and responsibilities of bribery; increasing the application of fine punishment and control punishment; reasonablly increasing setting in qualification sentencing; clarifying provisions of the circumstances which determines the magnitude of the penalty; integrating system of bribery charges, setting punishment to the crime of bribery separately in legislation.更多还原