【作者】 周宜俊；

【导师】 赵国强；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 刑法学， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 法律的生命在于实施。制定再完美的法律，如果不能得到很好的实施，也无异于一纸空文。当罪刑法定原则已经在立法中得以确立，当刑法规范体系已经日渐完善，刑事法治的中心就逐渐由立法环节向司法环节转移。本文以刑法规范适用方法为视角，以刑事司法的实践运作为考察对象，认为刑法文本规范与具体案件事实互动建构所形成的刑法裁判规范，不仅是刑法规范实践运作的产物，也是刑事裁判的大前提，更是刑事裁判的实质性理由。围绕刑法裁判规范的建构，论文对传统刑事裁判模式进行了批判性重构，并对刑法裁判规范建构的基本立场、基本路径以及刑法裁判规范建构的具体运作进行了分析和论证，力图通过探寻刑法裁判规范的建构方法，以保障在刑法规范实践运作过程中真正实现罪刑法定。论文除导论外，共分五章，约11万字。第一章提出了刑法裁判规范的概念。在对刑法规范概念、属性及存在形态进行分析的基础上，论文提出了刑法裁判规范的概念，对刑法裁判规范的基本属性，及其与刑事裁判规则、控辩双方意见以及其他法律领域裁判规范的异同进行了界分，并对构建刑法裁判规范的必要性进行了研究。刑法规范具有行为规范与裁判规范的双重属性，但刑法规范主要地还是指导刑事法官定罪量刑的法律规范，因此表现出强烈的裁判规范属性。刑法规范有静态与动态之别，前者为刑法文本规范，后者为刑法裁判规范。所谓刑法裁判规范，就是刑事法官在司法实践过程中，以刑法文本规范为法源，基于刑法文本规范与案件事实之间的互动而建构起来的实践性规范形态。刑法裁判规范作为以裁判行为为载体的规范形态，是一种即时性的实践规范，一种司法意义上的动态规范形态。实践中，刑法裁判规范往往表现为具体案件事实与刑法文本规范互动建构的解释结论，是刑法规范运作的实践形态，主要体现在刑事裁判理由中。它有刑法规范之实而无规范之形，它直接作用于个案事实的裁判，但往往隐而不显。提出刑法裁判规范这一概念，意在促使人们正视刑法实践运作的生动性、复杂性，意在促使司法人员自觉运用裁判方法发现、解释和论证可资适用于具体案件的刑法规范，从而获得刑事裁判的大前提——刑法裁判规范，并不断增强刑事裁判的客观性和公正性。第二章对刑法裁判规范建构的基本模式进行了探讨。论文首先对传统刑事裁判模式进行了批判，认为裁判方法否定论固然不可取，但同时司法三段论模式也存在缺陷和不足。司法三段论将刑事裁判问题过于简单化，非但依靠三段论不能获得裁判的大小前提，而且仅仅依靠司法三段论推理也无法保障裁判结论的真实可靠性，因此司法三段论不能有效应对刑事裁判的全部任务，不能实现罪刑法定的崇高使命，有必要进行完善性重构。重构不是否定司法三段论的积极功能，而是对其不足和缺陷予以弥补。因此，论文主张仍旧以司法三段论作为刑事裁判的基本框架，以犯罪构成理论作为基本工具，通过规范与事实的互动，运用法律发现、法律解释和法律论证等一系列法律方法构建可资适用于具体个案的刑法裁判规范，从而以刑法裁判规范作为实际的大前提，以类型化的案件事实作为小前提，藉由司法三段论推理而获得妥当的裁判结论。第三章论述了刑法裁判规范建构的基本立场，主要围绕罪刑法定如何坚守、主观主义与客观主义如何抉择等基本立场展开了论述。论文认为，坚持和实现罪刑法定原则不仅仅是刑事司法的重要使命，也是刑事司法的基本立场。罪刑法定原则有相对与绝对之分，也有“一点论”与“两点论”之争。论文旗帜鲜明地提出应当坚持一点论，反对两点论；坚持相对的罪刑法定原则，反对教条主义、机械主义。罪刑法定原则的精神实质就在于有利于被告，不仅事实存疑时需要有利于被告，在法律适用方面存疑时也应当有利于被告。这不是无原则的妥协，也不是司法者懒惰或推卸责任，而是人类认识能力有限性使然。对此，有必要建立科学的司法决策机制和程序。在贯彻罪刑法定原则的过程中，不可避免地要承担相应的代价，对此应避免盲目冲动，坚守司法克制主义的立场，通过严格解释刑法确保刑法干预的谦抑性。在面对客观主义还是主观主义的抉择中，基于罪刑法定的基本立场，理应选择客观主义作为构建刑法裁判规范的基本立场，坚持以行为及其实害作为归罪的基础，并重视行为客观面对主观因素的制约作用，按照由客观到主观的思路去评价行为、认定犯罪。第四章主要论述了刑法裁判规范建构的基本路径。在我国刑法中，犯罪构成是评价行为成立犯罪与否的基本理论工具。但关于犯罪构成的属性历来存在理论说与法定说之争。源自前苏联刑法理论，犯罪构成法定说的正确性似乎是确定无疑的。但从推理逻辑上看犯罪构成法定说存在循环论证之嫌，从存在形态上看遍寻刑法无犯罪构成之规定，而不同的犯罪构成理论也对犯罪构成法定说形成了直接冲击，有学者甚至认为犯罪构成法定说可能导致罪刑法定原则走向虚无。正是因为犯罪构成法定说存在着自身无法克服的缺陷，犯罪构成理论说才得以粉墨登场。犯罪构成是一种解读刑法规范的理论模型，它有别于事实原型，也不等同于刑法规范这一法律模型。犯罪构成理论对于刑法裁判规范建构而言，不仅为认定犯罪提供了理论模型，罗列了行为成立犯罪的条件清单；而且为解释刑法提供了框架体系，通过由客观到主观的要件排列以及各个不同犯罪之间的要件对比，使得刑事法官得以体系性解读刑法规范；同时通过犯罪构成理论的中介，案件事实得以类型化，刑法规范得以具体化，为实现刑法规范与案件事实的对接创造了条件，搭建了平台，为刑法裁判规范的建构以及刑事裁判结论的作出提供了基本路径。第五章主要对刑法裁判规范建构的具体运作进行了分析论证。面对案件事实，刑事法官首先需要寻找刑法规范，以为刑事裁判活动提供明确的指引。寻找刑法规范的过程就是法律发现的过程。通常而言，刑事法官根据经验和法感，运用直觉思维来发现可适用于“本案”的刑法规范。经验和法感来源于刑事法官长期的法律训练和法律实践。在实践中，犯罪构成理论对于刑事裁判中的法律发现具有工具性价值。犯罪构成理论为法官分析案件事实、认知刑法规范提供了分析框架和路径指引。通常而言，通过行为所侵害的法益（客体）可以大致确定可资适用的规范群；通过对行为方式及危害后果的分析可以针对性地锁定可资适用的具体刑法规范。发现了刑法规范后，并非均可以直接适用于案件事实，往往还需要刑事法官对刑法规范进行科学合理的解释。论文认为，刑事法官应为刑法解释的当然主体，这不仅是刑事裁判的需要，也是由刑法适用解释的性质所决定的。法官解释刑法具有个案性、个别性、实用性和主体间性等特征，对此有必要引起高度重视以防止解释的异化。在刑法解释方法上，从文义解释、体系解释，到历史解释，再到目的解释，既是基本的解释方法，相互之间的顺序也体现了大致的位阶关系：文义解释是起点，也划定了刑法解释的界限，体系解释是消除文义解释冲突或裂缝的方法，历史解释为刑法文义的探寻提供了参考资料，而目的解释则是对法律精神的宣示。但这种位阶关系不是绝对的，解释的目标在于获得合理的解释结论，在这一目标支配下，任何足以获得合理解释结论的解释方法都可以具有优先性。既然法律发现存在一定或然性，而刑法解释又可能出现多种解释结论之间的竞争，就有必要对发现的刑法规范、解释的结论，或者说是经由发现、解释所建构的刑法裁判规范，进行一番法律论证，以获得确定而妥当的刑法裁判规范。在法律论证过程中，对话方法作为一种程序性安排机制，为控辩审各方意见得以充分沟通，为各种意见的竞争提供了舞台，也为各方论辩、消除异见、吸纳不满提供了理性的程序。最终获得的刑法裁判规范是否科学合理，还得接受合法性、合理性、平等性拷问。只有符合公民预测可能性、能够获得社会公众认同的刑法裁判规范，才能够确保刑事裁判的客观性和公正性。更多还原

【Abstract】 The vitality of the law lies in the enforcement. Without sound implementation,even a perfect law would be nothing more than a dead letter. The focus of the rule ofcriminal law has gradually shifted from legislation to judicial aspects as the principleof nulla poena sine lege has established in legislation along with the increasinglyimprovement of the system of criminal law. In this paper, I would like to take theperspective of applicable method of norms of criminal law, while making the practiceand performance of criminal justice the subject of my research, and come to aconclusion that the norms of criminal judgment, which have been taking shape duringthe interaction between textual norm of criminal law and the facts of specific criminalcases, are not only the outcome of criminal law practice standardization and the majorpremise of the criminal judgment, but,more importantly, are the substantial groundsfor criminal judgment as well. Being centered around the construction of criminal lawjudgment norms, the paper critically reconstructs the criminal judgment mode andanalyzes, also demonstrates the basic stance&path as well as the operation of theconstruction of criminal judgment norms in an effort to assure the truly realization ofthe nullum crimen sine lege during the practice of norms of criminal law through myresearch on the methods to build up criminal judgment norms. This Paper is dividedinto five chapters besides the Introduction, approximately110,000words.The first chapter proposes the concept of the norm of criminal judgment.Basedon the analysis towards the concept, nature and pattern of its existence, I put forth the concept of the norm of criminal judgment and clarified its fundamental nature bydifferentiating it from rule of criminal judgment, opinions from both the prosecutionand the defense and judgment rules for other legal fields. I also studied the necessityof the construction of norm of criminal judgment. Although with dual attributes as acode for both the conduct and judgment, the norm of criminal law is basically thelegal norm navigating the criminal judge‘s conviction and sentencing, thus, it showsan intense character as norm of judgment in its nature. Norm of criminal law are withdifferent characters when acting as static norm and dynamic norm, the former are textnorms of criminal law, while the latter are the norms of criminal judgment. So-callednorms of criminal judgment are kind of practical formation established with the textnorm of criminal law as the source of law during the juridical practice of criminaljudges and are based on the interaction between the text norm of criminal law and thefacts of cases. As a formation of norm with the judgment behavior as the carrier, thenorm of criminal judgment is an immediately practical norm and a dynamic formationof norm in juridical sense. Practically speaking, the text norms of criminal law tend torepresent as a conclusion in regard with the explanation to the interactive constructionof the fact of specific cases and the text norm of criminal law. They are practicalformation of the norm’s operation and are mostly reflected in the criminal judicatorygrounds. They enjoy the spirit of the norms of criminal law while without a norm’sappearance and have immediate impact on the facts of cases invisibly. I put forth theconcept of norms of criminal judgment in an effort to urge the people to acknowledgethe vitality and complicity of the operation of criminal law practice, and to prompt thejudicial personnel to obtain the major premise of criminal judgment–the norms ofcriminal judgment through taking advantage of judgment methods to discover,interpret and demonstrate the norms of criminal law applicable to specific cases, andthereby constantly enhance the objectivity and fairness of the criminal judgment.In Chapter II, I conducted a research on the basic pattern of the norm of criminaljudgment. Firstly, I criticized the traditional pattern of criminal judgment and Ibelieved that negativism to judgment methods is by no means desirable; however, thejudicial syllogism also has its limitation and deficiency. The judicial syllogism, which is far too simplistic when facing with the matter of criminal judgment, couldn’t getany of the major/minor premises for legal judgment, furthermore, it could neithersafeguard the authenticity and reliability of the judicatory conclusion, thus, it mayneed to be improved by reconstruction given its inefficiency when coping with tasksin criminal judicatory and realizing its noble mission in related with the principle ofnulla poena sine lege. Rather than denying the positive function of judicial syllogism,the reconstruction itself aims to make up for the deficiencies and limitations ofjudicial syllogism. Therefore, I called for, in this paper, maintaining the basicframework of judicial syllogism in criminal judgment and using the theory ofconstitutions of a crimes as the basic instrument, through the interaction betweennorms and facts, meanwhile, deploying a series of legal methods which includes lawdiscovery, legal interpretation and legal argumentation to build up the norms ofcriminal judgment applicable to specific case, and accordingly with the norms ofcriminal judgment as the major premise, while the fact of specific crime as the minorpremise to obtain an appropriate judicatory conclusion based on judicial syllogism.The third chapter discusses, mainly centered around topics such as “how toadhere to the principle of nulla poena sine lege”,“how to make a right decisionbetween subjectivism and objectivism”and so forth, the basic stances involved inconstruction of norms of criminal judgment The paper argues that consistentlyenforcing and realization of the principle of nulla poena sine lege rvence is not onlythe important mission but also the basic stance of the criminal judgment. Theprinciple of nulla poena sine lege rvence could have different connotation when bedeemed an absolute/relative principle, and there have been some conflicts betweenthe one-aspect theory and two-aspect theory all along in regard of this principle. Thepaper make it rather clear that we should uphold one-aspect theory while against thetow-aspect theory; adhere to principle of nulla poena sine lege rvence in a relativist’sway and fight against dogmatism and mechanism. The spiritual substance of nullapoena sine lege rvence is to be in favor of the defendant.“in favor of defendant”should not only be implemented wherever doubts to facts arises but be upheldwhenever questions emerges in the application of law. It’s not an unprincipled compromise or the excuse for a sluttish judicial person to pass the buck, instead, it’sall about the limited human cognitive ability. In this regard, it is necessary to establisha scientific judicial decision-making mechanisms and procedures. In the process ofimplementing the principle of nulla poena sine lege rvence, we will have to bear somecorresponding costs inevitably. Thus, we should keep the judicial restraint stance andassure the restraining principle during criminal law intervene with strict legalinterpretation rather than rushing off on individual impulse. When facing with thedecision between subjectivism and objectivism, we should choose objectivism as thebasic stance for construction of criminal judgment norms and adhere to theincriminating foundation of behavior and actual damage and then take into accountthe restriction subjective factors weighing on the objective behavior, with an“objective matters first and then subjective matters” thinking pattern, to assess thebehavior and determine a crime.The fourth chapter focuses on the elementary path to construct the norms ofcriminal judgment. In Chinese criminal law, the theory of constitutions of crimes isthe fundamental theoretical instrument to determine whether a behavior constitutes acrime. Stemming from the criminal theory of former Soviet Union, the theory ofconstitutions of crimes appears to be regarded as of validity beyond doubt. However,from a logic reasoning perspective, the reasoning process of "constitutions of crimesare determined by law" is suspected of circular reasoning. And, when looking at itsmode of existence, we could hardly find a single line of related provision in the penalcode. Furthermore, various theories regarding the constitutions of crimes have theirimpact on the theory of "constitutions of crimes are determined by law", and somescholars even argue that the "constitutions of crimes are determined by law" wouldlead to nihilism in the principle of nulla poena sine lege. It is exactly due to theinevitable defect in the theory of " constitutions of crimes are determined by law" thatthe theory of constitutions of the crimes could manage to come on board.Constitutions of crimes, unlike the fact model or legal model as the criminal norms,are theoretical model for interpretation of the norms of criminal law. As to theconstruction of norms of criminal judgment, the theory of constitutions of crimes provides a theoretical model to determine a crime and list the prerequisites requiredfor a behavior to be deemed a crime; it establishes a framework system for theinterpretation of criminal law and make it possible for the criminal judge to interpretthe criminal law systematically though orderly laying out the elements in a manner of“objective matters first, then subjective matters” and elements comparison betweendifferent crimes; it also helps to categorize the facts of crimes and concretizes thecriminal norms with the theory of constitutions of crimes acting as the medium to setthe stage to connect the criminal norms with facts of cases, and delivers an elementarypath for constructing the norms of criminal judgment and making a criminal judgmentdecision..Chapter5analyzes how the construction of criminal judgment norms works.When facing with the facts of cases, a criminal judge should look into the norms ofcriminal law in the first place, and use them to guard his criminal judgment. Thesearching for norms of criminal law also involved the legal discovery process.Generally speaking, a criminal judge could discover any norms of criminal lawapplicable to “the case” in light of his experience and legal sense based on hisintuitive thoughts. The experience and legal sense are derived from a long-term legaltraining and practice. In practice, the theory of constitutions of crimes has its valueduring the legal discovery in criminal judgment as a legal instrument. The theoryprovides a framework and guide for the judge to analyze facts of cases andacknowledge the norms of criminal law.Basically, the certain group of normsapplicable could be mostly determined by the object of specific legal interest violatedby the behaviors and the judge could pertinently target the concrete norms applicablethrough analysis of the behavioral pattern and harmful consequences. However, thenorms of criminal law could not be applied to the facts of cases directly after beingdiscovered and must go through a rational interpretation by the criminal judge. Thepaper insists that the judge should be the nature principal to interpret the criminal law,which is not only required by criminal judgment but also decided by the characters ofinterpretation to criminal law application. As to the interpretation of the criminallaw by the judge, it tends to present with various characters such as individuality, intersubjectivity and practicability and consequently deserve our attention to beprohibited from dissimilation. In regard with the method applied in criminal lawinterpretation, which covers a wide range from semantic interpretation, systematicalinterpretation to historical interpretation and teleological interpretation, are both thefundamental interpretation methods and the demonstration of the hierarchy accordingto the order of different methods. It started with semantic interpretation, which alsodraws a line on interpretation of criminal law, followed by the systematicalinterpretation that eliminates the conflicts and cracks of semantic interpretation, thenwith the historical interpretation providing reference materials for semanticinterpretation and the teleological interpretation to claim the spirit of law.Nevertheless, such kind of hierarchy is not an absolute one. The aim of interpretationis to obtain a reasonable conclusion, so under the given premise any interpretationmethod which is sufficient to get a reasonable conclusion could have the priority.Now that some probabilities exits in legal discovery in addition to the competitionbetween different conclusions in criminal law interpretation, it is required to carrythrough a legal argumentation towards the conclusion of the interpretation, thediscovered norms of criminal law, or, in the other words, the norms of criminaljudgment consist of legal discoveries and interpretations, so as to obtain a certainappropriate norm of criminal judgment. During the legal argumentation, the methodapplied in the dialogue between prosecution, defendant and the judge, as asystematical arrangement mechanism, could provide each party with a stage for fullycommunication and competition, meanwhile, it also creates a rational procedure foreach party to debate, reach a consensus and accept the discontent. At last, the normsof criminal judgment obtained could not be regarded scientific and reasonable untilthey live through the questioning about their legality, rationality and equity. Onlythose norms of criminal judgment live up to the predictability for citizens with publicrecognition could guarantee the objectivity and fairness of the criminal judgment.更多还原