【作者】 李振林；

【导师】 刘宪权；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 刑法学， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 法律拟制是法学研究中的一个并不显著的领域，往往只是在与其他概念进行比较分析时方被提及，但不能因此否定法律拟制存在的重要意义，更不能因此否定研究法律拟制的重要价值。实际上，法律拟制的适用范围很广，在民法、行政法特别是刑事法领域，均广泛应用到了法律拟制。我国现行《刑法》中就大量存在着法律拟制条款。然而，对法律拟制的适用并没有在人的直接意识中明确地表达出来，而往往仅存在于人们的潜意识之中。故而有学者将法律拟制比喻为“隐没的冰山”：冰山的十分之九仍在水面以下，而仅仅有十分之一露出了水面为人所知。而且，这仅仅“露在水面上的十分之一”还主要是针对法理学领域和民事法领域的法律拟制的研究，对刑法中法律拟制的研究则是少之又少，更遑论对刑法中法律拟制的系统研究。可能正是因缺乏系统研究而导致的“只见树木，不见森林”，一些学者纷纷对法律拟制的“正当性”提出了各种质疑和诘问。而对法律拟制的评价将直接关系到对我国现行《刑法》中法律拟制条款的适用以及未来刑事立法技术的选择。因此，本文尝试进行一些开创性的工作，对刑法中法律拟制的法理基础和形成要件进行证成和辨析，对法律拟制在我国刑法中存在的价值和意义进行论证，并对我国刑法中的法律拟制条款进行全面梳理，以期对立法机关妥适设置法律拟制条款以及司法机关准确适用法律拟制条款有所裨益。本文分为导言和正文两部分。根据内容布局，正文可分为以下六个部分。第一章阐述和论证了法律拟制的概念及特征、法律拟制的类型，以及法律拟制产生的原因等内容。法律拟制，应是指立法者基于某种价值目的的考虑，不论事实上的真实性，有意用现有的法律概念、法律规范去解释和适用社会生活中出现的新情况、新问题，以将不同事物等同对待并赋予其相同法律效果，从而达到既能适应社会需要又能体现法律基本价值之目的的立法技术或立法活动。法律拟制具有拟制事实相异性和引证性等形式特征，以及假定性、不可反驳性、规范性、非普适性和政策导向性等实质特征。根据不同的目的和不同的标准，可以对法律拟制进行不同的分类：按逻辑可能性的不同，可将其分为推定性法律拟制和假定性法律拟制；按设置主体的不同，可将其分为立法拟制和司法拟制；按适用的法律部门的不同，可将其分为民事法拟制、行政法拟制和刑事法拟制等。法律拟制的产生是有其特定原因的，主要有以下四点。其一，应对客观事实的无限性。一方面，解决人类认知的有限性和对客观事实无限追求之间的矛盾需要法律拟制来调和；另一方面，通过复杂问题简单化以保持社会的平稳发展需要具有简化功能的法律拟制。其二，弥补法律自身的漏洞。刑法中的法律拟制是弥补刑法缺陷和漏洞的必然要求，是刑法确定性和现实不确定性之间的必然选择。其三，维护法律稳定的需要。通过运用法律拟制的立法手段，既可以在实质上弥补原有法律规则的漏洞，又能在形式上保持原有法律规则不变的前提下，实现法律体系的完整与内部一致，从而最大程度地确保了法律的稳定性。其四，法律拟制能够满足社会的特定需求。法律拟制是立法者解决始料未及、却在现实中不断出现的新问题或者特殊情况的绝佳应对之策，故而其对于满足法律的发展和不断适应社会的需要来说，是一项不得不倚重的立法技术。第二章证成和辨析了刑法中法律拟制的法理基础和形成要件等。刑法中法律拟制的法理基础主要体现为以下五个方面：法律拟制不论对于制定法还是判例法而言，均是一项实践操作层面的典型立法技术；法律拟制也是刑事政策得以通过刑法予以充分贯彻实施的重要途径；通过设置法律拟制，还可以避免法条冗繁、维护法律稳定、解决司法疑难问题等，从而节约刑法实现成本、促进刑法效益和价值的最大化，实现刑法经济性；法律拟制是立法者追求实质正义的生动体现，而罪刑均衡是实质正义在刑法中的具体表达，正是以实现罪刑均衡为目标引领，立法者方才设置了诸多法律拟制条款；在法律领域尤其在刑事法领域，我们需要运用类比思维来解决新问题、开拓新思路，以使我们的法律在保持稳定性的同时也能够应对不断产生的新问题，而刑法中的法律拟制其实就是类比思维在刑法领域的生动写照。不可否认，刑法中的法律拟制在具有法律经济性等优点的同时，也确实会产生某种程度的“威胁”而存在一定的风险。不恰当地设置法律拟制，就可能会将法律拟制“等同视之”的效果扩展至国民可以接受的范围之外，以致可能违背刑法的机能、加剧重刑主义、侵蚀罪刑均衡之基本原则，并可能导致刑法理论的混乱等。虽然法律拟制设置不当可能会产生上述“威胁”，但法律拟制也绝非有些学者所批判的那般一无是处或不可容忍。我们不能用普通的刑法理论来随意指摘法律拟制的不足，对其科以各种“正当性”质疑。法律拟制虽然重视刑法的社会保护机能，但也绝不漠视刑法的人权保障机能。法律拟制既不违背罪刑法定的形式侧面的要求，也不违背罪刑法定实质侧面的要求。法律拟制也并不因主观归罪或客观归罪而违反了主客观相统一原则。法律拟制条款具备独立的构成要件体系，其与基本规定的构成要件并行不悖，适用特别规定的构成要件并不代表就虚置了基本规定的构成要件。因此，法律拟制实际上并非学者所批判的那般充满威胁和矛盾，只是由于立法者有时没有严格遵循法律拟制应有的设置规则和要求，才导致某些法律拟制设置得不合理。而且，某些法律拟制设置得不合理并不能由此就推断出法律拟制的不合理，更不能以此来否定法律拟制追求罪刑均衡的实质内涵。另外，根据刑法中法律拟制的内涵及其存在的法理基础等因素，我们可以发现刑法中的法律拟制一般包含基础性事实和参照性法律两个形成要件。法律拟制本身是建立在事实基础之上的。基础性事实的存在正是设置法律拟制的前提条件。法律拟制的基础性事实主要表现为两种形式：未被刑法评价的行为事实和刑法规定或确认的法律事实。前者是指随社会发展而产生严重社会危害性而应科处刑罚的行为事实。由于这些行为原先不具有社会危害性或社会危害性较小，因而不值得科处刑罚，也就无需由刑法进行评价。但随着其社会危害性的产生或增大，达到了值得科处刑罚的程度，立法者就通过法律拟制，将该行为事实拟制为刑法中所规定的某一犯罪行为。后者是指因社会的发展或者行为人实施的其他积极或消极行为，而使得社会危害性增大而应加重刑罚，或者社会危害性减小或消失而应减轻或免除刑罚的刑法中已做评价的行为事实。由于这些行为原先就具有一定的社会危害性，因而刑法已经对其作过评价。但随着这些行为的社会危害性增大或者行为人实施的其他消极行为以至于应科处更重刑罚，或者社会危害性减小、消失或行为人实施的其他积极行为以至于仅可科处较轻刑罚或不应科处刑罚，立法者就通过法律拟制，将该行为事实拟制为刑法中所规定的某一较重犯罪、较轻犯罪，甚或将其拟制为无罪。刑法中的大部分法律拟制就是以这类基础性事实为前提而设置的。参照性法律，是指形成法律拟制所参照或依照的刑法规范。基础性事实须结合参照性法律方能够最终形成法律拟制。综观《刑法》，我们可以发现，其中任何一个法律拟制条款中均存在参照性法律，只不过有些体现得比较直接、明显，而有些则相对隐晦。基础性事实须结合参照性法律方能够最终形成法律拟制主要基于两个原因：一是参照性法律是法律拟制性质的重要保障；二是以参照性法律为依据是实现刑法经济性的要求。第三章对我国《刑法》总则和分则中的法律拟制条款进行了较为全面的梳理和分析。法律拟制并不仅仅局限于刑法分则中的拟制性规定，刑法总则中的“明知不同而等同视之”的规定也属于刑法中的法律拟制范畴。例如，《刑法》第6条第2款将浮动领土视为领土的拟制；《刑法》第30条对单位犯罪的拟制；《刑法》第8条、第49条、第63条第2款、第65条等但书规定将某些符合规定的情形视为不符合该规定的拟制；《刑法》第66条将特别累犯视为累犯的拟制；《刑法》第67条第2款将“准自首”行为视为自首的拟制；《刑法》第91条第2款将部分私人财产视为公共财产的拟制；《刑法》第93条第2款将部分非国家工作人员视为国家工作人员的拟制；等等。当然，刑法中的法律拟制还主要是集中于刑法分则中。根据法律拟制在刑法中具体拟制对象的不同，刑法分则中的法律拟制可以分为对客观行为的法律拟制、对犯罪主体的法律拟制、对主观方面的法律拟制，以及对其他对象的法律拟制等。其中，对客观行为的法律拟制是我国刑法分则中数量最多、分布最广，同时也是最为复杂的法律拟制规定。根据所拟制的行为类型T1与行为类型T2之间的关系，我们还可以将该种类型的法律拟制具体划分为将非犯罪行为拟制为犯罪行为、将犯罪行为拟制为非犯罪行为、将此罪拟制为彼罪、将一罪拟制为数罪、将数罪拟制为一罪等类型的法律拟制。将非犯罪行为拟制为犯罪行为，是指基于某种特定的立法政策或意图，刑法将一种本来不符合犯罪构成特征的行为规定为犯罪，如《刑法》第102条第2款、第155条、第236条第2款等。将犯罪行为拟制为非犯罪行为，是指基于某种特定的立法政策或意图，刑法将一种本应符合犯罪构成特征的行为规定为仅属于行政违法行为。这种类型的法律拟制在我国《刑法》中仅有一个条款，即《刑法》第383条第1款第3项后段。将此罪拟制为彼罪，是指将某犯罪行为Tl拟制为与其具有某些共同之处但本质上并不完全一致的另一基本犯罪行为T2，如《刑法》第196条第3款、第247条后段和第248条第1款后段、第267条第2款等。将一罪拟制为数罪，是指刑法将本应视为一个整体进行评价并应当作为一罪处断的犯罪行为，通过法律的强制性规定改变《刑法》第69条关于数罪并罚的规定，而将其按照数罪对待的情形。这种法律拟制在我国刑法分则中仅有一个条款，即《刑法》第204条第2款。将数罪拟制为一罪，是指依照刑法理论，在行为人实施数罪而应当予以数罪并罚的情况下，立法者为了实现某种政策或意图，通过法律的强制性规定改变《刑法》第69条关于数罪并罚的规定，而将其以一罪论处的情形。如《刑法》第153条第3款等11个连续犯条款、第171条第3款、第208条第2款、第398条第2款等。对犯罪主体的法律拟制包含将“无身份者”拟制为“有身份者”和将“有身份者”拟制为“无身份者”两种类型。前者如《刑法》第382条第2款、第388条之一第2款等；后者如《刑法》第253条第2款。对主观方面的法律拟制包含《刑法》第247条后段和第248条第1款后段、第289条前段、第292条第2款等条款。对其他对象的法律拟制包括《刑法》第149条第2款、第367条第3款、第383条第1款第3项后段、第451条第2款等条款。第四章对刑法中法律拟制与注意规定进行了辨析，并梳理了我国《刑法》分则中的注意规定条款。注意规定，是指在刑法已经对某一问题作出基本规定的前提下，对于其中某些容易被混淆或忽略的情形，为避免司法工作人员忽略或误解，而又专门独立列出，以重点提醒司法工作人员注意的规定。注意规定具有提示性、重复性和标志性等特征。法律拟制与注意规定具有补充主要规定不足之作用及构成形式上的一致性等相同之处，但同时它们在所规定的内容与基本规定的关系、适用条件，以及功能等方面也均存在较大差异。因此，我们可以综合某条款在不存在的情况下所得出的结论是否与其存在时相同、法条所蕴涵的立法意图，以及某条款是否具有普遍适用性或可推广性等三个方面进行区分。通过把握注意规定的特征及其与法律拟制的区别等，我们可以发现我国刑法分则中存在诸多注意规定条款。根据条款所提示的内容，我们大致可以将我国刑法分则中的注意规定分为提示需“明知”的注意规定、提示以共犯处断的注意规定、提示应数罪并罚的注意规定、提示按强奸罪论处的注意规定、提示依照职务犯罪论处的注意规定、提示依照特殊规定定罪处罚的注意规定，以及提示其他的注意规定等七种类型。第五章对转化犯、法定的一罪、处断的一罪，以及推定等其他与法律拟制具有一定“家族类似性”的概念，与法律拟制进行了辨析。转化犯，是指在实施某一故意犯罪行为的过程中，因又实施了一行为或者出现了某一较为严重的结果，而超出了原基本罪的构成要件范围，基于罪刑均衡原则的要求，刑法特别规定在这种情形下犯罪发生了转化，并以转化后的犯罪定罪处罚的犯罪形态。之所以某些刑法条款既被认定为转化犯条款又被认定为法律拟制条款，主要是因为法律拟制和转化犯之间存在转化犯内涵的法律拟制性和转化犯外延的法律拟制性这两个方面的关联性。而这就决定了法律拟制与转化犯的主要差别在于其外延的大小。详言之，转化犯条款中仅包含了对客观行为的法律拟制类型中将数罪拟制为一罪和将此罪拟制为彼罪的情形，以及对主观方面的法律拟制类型中部分法律拟制条款。法定的一罪包括集合犯和结合犯两种形态，故而区分法律拟制与法定的一罪就必须分别区分法律拟制与集合犯、结合犯。集合犯和结合犯实际上均属于将数罪拟制为一罪类型的法律拟制。处断的一罪中可能与法律拟制存在“交集”的是连续犯和牵连犯。连续犯与法律拟制之间实际上呈一种交叉的关系，其交集即为《刑法》第153条第3款、第201条第3款、第263条等11个经法定化的连续犯条款。牵连犯与将数罪拟制为一罪类型的法律拟制存在一些相似之处，如均是将实质上的数罪以一罪处断、所包含的数行为之间均具有异质性和一定程度的牵连性，以及均是将数罪以其中的一个重罪定罪或从一重罪从重处断等。当然，牵连犯和法律拟制具有更大的相异性：牵连犯是将数罪酌定为一罪处断，而法律拟制是将数罪法定为一罪处断。正是这个区别决定了牵连犯和法律拟制在我国现行《刑法》框架内只能呈现平行的状态，而并不存在任何一个既是牵连犯又是法律拟制的规定。推定，是指经法律规定可以从已知的基础事实推断未知的推定事实存在，并允许当事人举证反驳或推翻的一种证据规则。法律拟制和推定在形式上非常相似，均具有假定的成分且均涉及两个事实，只要一事实的存在得到证实，就能产生与另一事实相同的法律效果，即均是通过对一个事实的认定而推及另一个事实的存在。但它们之间在所涉及的两个事实间的关系、性质、所要意图解决的问题、对举证责任的影响等方面均存在较大差异。第六章对刑法中法律拟制的应然性设置规则和程序进行了建构。法律拟制作为一种法律上的假定或虚构，是一种特殊的立法活动，其虽然可以不受逻辑和常规归罪原则的约束和检验，但毕竟存在一定的威胁，一旦设置不当就可能会产生破坏法治、戕害公民自由等诸多严重的后果。因此，为了规避法律拟制设置不当的威胁，在刑法中设置法律拟制时就应当遵循一定的设置规则。其一，法律拟制的设置应遵循立法拟制原则，即应将法律拟制的设置主体限定为立法机关，严禁司法机关和行政机关进行任何形式的法律拟制。其二，法律拟制的设置均应遵循拟制相当性原则，即要求立法者在运用法律拟制技术时，必须考量拟制情形与被拟制情形在社会危害程度上是否具有相当性，两者的事实是否能够在此基础上建立起一定的等值关系。只有当拟制情形与被拟制情形在社会危害程度上相当且能够建立起等值关系时，才能进行法律拟制。其三，法律拟制的设置应符合刑法机能的协调机制，遵循刑法机能协调之原则。即应尽量减少通过限制公民权利和自由的手段来实现立法者的政策和意图，维护社会公共秩序之稳定。只有当不强调社会保护就无法维护社会秩序以致可能危害到社会成员的生存条件时，才能设置法律拟制条款。其四，法律拟制的设置应遵循拟制谦抑性原则，既应尽量避免设置那些将“第二法”作为法律“急先锋”从而违背刑法谦抑性的法律拟制条款，也应尽量避免设置那些能够以其他方式实现立法者政策或意图的不必要的法律拟制条款。其五，法律拟制的设置应遵循司法便捷原则，立法者在设置法律拟制条款时应着重考虑所设置的法律拟制条款在司法适用过程会产生何种实效，能否切实起到解决司法争议的作用等因素。另外，由于法律拟制因确实会产生一定的“威胁”而较难被社会公众所认同，因而为了应对和防范这种“威胁”并加强其被认同感，还应当采用更严格的特定立法程序，即应在一般刑法条款的立法程序之外再设置一些特定立法程序来规范法律拟制技术的运用或法律拟制条款的设置。首先，对于法律拟制，应设置包括立法听证会和立法论证会在内的特定的公众参与程序。消除误解的最好方式是主动公开而不是刻意遮掩。欲要使法律拟制规定不超出普通民众的预测和理解范围，从而消除公众对法律拟制的误解，加强法律拟制的被认同感，最好的方式莫过于让公众参与法律拟制条款的制定。其次，应设置法律拟制的立法说明程序。要求权力主体在行使权力时必须说明其行为的理由以防止权力的恣意使用，是所有有关权力制约的制度安排的重要内容。而且，只有对行为的理由进行说明，所实施的行为才能更容易被社会公众理解、认可、接受和服从，从而更有利于获得行为的正当性基础。最后，应设置法律拟制的审查、解释及废止程序。为了实现使已成立的法律获得普遍的服从，而人们所服从的法律又必须是良好法律的目标，我们不仅要重视法律拟制的设置程序，还应重视法律拟制设置之后的审查、解释及废止等监督程序。即应积极、主动地审查已生效的法律拟制条款，并收集法律拟制条款在实际适用过程中所存在的问题，对适用困难的法律拟制进行相应的立法解释，并废止那些拟制不当和业已失去“生命力”的法律拟制条款。更多还原

【Abstract】 Legal Fiction is not a notable topic in legal researches. However, the importance ofLegal Fiction’s existence cannot be ignored only because of Legal Fiction is basicallymentioned only when it compared with other concepts, and its researches cannot beconsidered as worthless. Actually, Legal Fiction is a big topic which be widelyapplied in Civil Law, Executive Law and especially Criminal Law. There are lots ofArticles relate Legal Fiction in the present Chinese Criminal Law. However, theapplication of Legal Fiction normally only exists in people’s sub-consciousness, butnot in consciousness, and that is the reason why some scholars likened Legal Fictionto "Iceberg": its "tip" which out of water can be seen by people, but there are still nineparts of contents in the water. In addition, even the one part mostly focused on fieldsof Jurisprudence and Civil Law, and there is less research on Criminal Law’s LegalFiction, no mention a systemic research on this topic. Maybe the vacancy of asystemic research caused people "only can see a tree, but not a forest", and manyscholars pointed various "righteous" queries and interrogates on Legal Fiction. Thevaluation on Legal Fiction is directly related to the application of Legal FictionArticles in present Chinese Criminal Law and the choice of criminal legislativetechniques in the future. Therefore, this article tries to make some groundbreakingworks: to analyze and argue jurisprudence basis and formation essentials of LegalFiction in criminal law, and to prove the value and importance of Legal Fiction in present Chinese Criminal Law through combing articles relate to Legal Fiction inChinese Criminal Law. This article is divided into introduction and main body,depending on the differences among contents, the main body is separated as followingsix parts.The first chapter illustrates the concept, features, types and roots of legal fiction.Legal fiction means, based on the consideration of certain values, legislatorsintentionally use the existing legal concepts, norms to explain and apply to the newcircumstances, problems arising in the course of social development, and equaldifferent objects with the same legal effect, so as to achieve the legislative techniqueor activity which could not only adapt to social demand but also reflect legal values.Legal fiction has formal features and essential features; the former refers to diversityand cross-references of fiction fact, the latter means fiction, irrefutability,normalization, non-universality, and policy-drive. Legal fiction could be classifieddifferently according to different purposes and standards: as per different makers, itcould be classified into legislative fiction and judicial fiction; as per differentapplicable legal branches, it could be classified into civil law fiction, administrativelaw fiction and criminal law fiction, ect. Legal fiction is made on specific bases,which could be summarized into four main points. Firstly, legal fiction is made asresponse to the un-limitedness of objective fact. On the one hand, the contradictionsbetween limitedness of human cognition and infinite pursuit of objective fact need bereconciled by legal fiction; on the other hand, to achieve the social stability, it isevitable to use the simplified function of legal fiction to simplify complicated socialissues. Secondly, legal fiction is made to cover legal loopholes. Under criminal law,legal fiction is not only the necessary requirement of covering loopholes and defectsof criminal law, but also the evitable choice of reconciling the legal certainty and theuncertainty in reality. Thirdly, legal fiction is made to maintain legal stability. As thelegislative device, legal fiction could assure the legal stability to maximum extent, bymeans of not only essentially making up the loopholes of existing legal rules, but alsorealizing jurisprudence integrity and internal consistency in the premise of formally maintaining existing legal rules. Fourthly, legal fiction is made to satisfy specificneeds of the society. Legal fiction is the excellent strategy to solve the un-expectablebut inevitable new problem or exceptionable circumstances. Therefore, in order tomeet the social development and consistently adapt to social needs, legislators haveno choice but to rely on legal fiction.The chapter two criticizes and analyzes the legal bases and formation elements. Thelegal bases of legal fiction mainly reflect into the following five aspects: firstly, nomatter for statute law or case law, legal fiction is as typical legislative technique in thelevel of operating practice; secondly, legal fiction is a significant channel throughwhich the criminal policy could be fully implemented via criminal law; thirdly, legalfiction could avoid miscellaneous provisions, maintain legal stability, solve judicialknotty problems, so as to save legal cost, promote maximization the efficiency andvalue of criminal law, and realize economical-efficiency of criminal law; fourthly,legal fiction is the vivid reflection of substantial justice pursued by legislators, justbecause leading by the aim of achieving Balance between Crime and Penalty,legislators formulated several provisions on legal fiction; finally, in the domain of law,particularly the criminal law, we need use analogical thinking to solve upcomingproblems, expand new thinking, so as to simultaneously maintain the legal stable andsolve arising new problems, and the legal fiction under the criminal law is exactly thevivid reflection of analogical thinking in the field of criminal law. It’s undeniable thatalthough legal fiction under criminal law has the aforesaid virtues, e.g.legal-economical efficiency, meanwhile, it indeed could also have certain "threats". Iflegal fiction is made appropriately, its equivalence effect may expand out of people’sacceptable scope, as a result, the functions of criminal law may be violated, doctrineof severe punishment may be aggravated, Balance between Crime and Penalty may beeroded, more seriously, theories of criminal law may subject to chaos. Althoughinappropriate stipulation may cause the aforesaid threats, there is no ground for somescholars to criticize legal fiction as useless or intolerable. We cannot casually useregular criminal law theories to blame deficiencies of legal fiction, and doubt its legitimacy. Although legal fiction focuses on social protection function of criminallaw, however, it by no means would ignore human rights protection function ofcriminal law. Legal fiction neither violate formal nor essential requirement of theprinciple of legality. Legal fiction also does not violate the principle of the unificationof the subjective elements and the objective elements because it neither falls intosubjective culpability nor objective culpability. Legal fiction has unique system ofconstitutive requirement, which is not contradict with the constitutive requirement ofbasic rules, since the application of the constitutive requirement of special provisionsdoes not mean the constitutive requirement of basic rules would become nominal.Therefore, in fact, legal fiction is not as threatening or contradictious as described bythese criticizers. Only when legislators did not formulate legal fiction in accordancewith proper rules and requirements, could cause the unreasonable setting of certainlegal fiction. In addition, given some of unreasonable settings of legal fiction, it isimproper to deduce legal fiction is unreasonable, nor to deny the essential intention oflegal fiction, i.e. pursuing balance of crime and punishment. In addition, according tothe connotation and legal bases of legal fiction under criminal law, we can find thelegal fiction under criminal law generally contains two formation elements:fundamental facts and criterion-referenced statutes. The legal fiction itself isestablished on the basis of fundamental fact. The existing of fundamental fact is theprecondition of establishing legal fiction. Fundamental fact of legal fiction mainlyreflects in two forms: behavior fact which is not evaluated by criminal law and, legalfact stipulated or confirmed by criminal law. The former refers to the behavior factwhich causes serious social perniciousness with the development of society andshould be imposed punishment. In the beginning, this behavior originally did not havesocial perniciousness or had little social perniciousness, therefore, it did not deserve tobe punished nor evaluated by criminal law. However, with the emersion orenlargement of social perniciousness, once it exceeds the threshold of penalty,legislators would fictionalize this behavior as one type of criminal behavior by meansof legal fiction. The latter means, due to other positive or negative behaviors causedby social development or conducted by the doers, the social perniciousness of the behavior is enlarged thereby legislators should aggravate penalty on this behavior, orthe social perniciousness of the behavior is decreased or decimated thereby legislatorsshould alleviate or relieve penalty on this behavior. Owning to the original socialharmfulness of these behaviors, criminal law already evaluated these behaviors.However, because of the following reasons, by means of legal fiction, legislatorsfictionalized these behaviors as certain heavy offense, minor offense, or eveninnocence: social perniciousness of the behavior is increased or the doer conductedother negative behaviors to the extent of deserving heavier penalty; socialperniciousness of the behavior is decreased or decimated, or the doer conducted otherpositive behaviors to the extent of deserving lighter or no penalty. In criminal law,most of legal fiction is established on the basis of this type of fundamental fact.Criterion-referenced statute refers to, in the course of formation of the legal fictioncriminal law code which is referred or abided by. Combining with criterion-referencedstatute, fundamental fact could finally forms legal fiction. Overview the Criminal Law,every legal fiction provision therein all contains criterion-referenced statute; merelysome criterion-referenced statutes are direct and obvious, while others are relativelyobscure. There are two reasons why fundamental fact should combine withcriterion-referenced statute to form legal fiction: on one side, criterion-referencedstatute is fundamental guarantee of the nature of legal fiction; one the other, toachieve economical-efficiency of criminal law, must reply on criterion-referencedstatute.In the third chapter, the articles related to legal fiction under the General Rule andSpecific Provisions of criminal law is sorted and analyzed in details. Legal fictionunder the Criminal Law is not limited to fictional provisions in the SpecificProvisions of Criminal Law, but also includes the rule of "regard falseness as truth"under the General Rules. For instance, the Article6.2of Criminal Law fictionalizesfloating territory as real territory; the Article30of Criminal Law is the fiction of unitcrime; the proviso provision of Criminal Law, e.g. Article8, Article49, Article63.2,Article65, ect. Fictionalize certain circumstances which actually fulfill requirement as not fulfilling; the Article66of the Criminal Law fictionalizes special recidivism asrecidivism; the Article67.2of the Criminal Law fictionalizes quasi-voluntarysurrender as voluntary surrender; the Article91.2of the Criminal Law fictionalizespart of personal property as public property; the Article93.2of the Criminal Lawfictionalizes part of non-national functionary as national functionary; ect. Accordingto varying specific fictionalized object, the legal fiction under Specific Provision ofthe Criminal Law could be classified as legal fiction of objective behavior, legalfiction of subject of crime, legal fiction of subjective aspect, and legal fiction of otherobjectives, ect. Therein, among the legal fictions under the Specific Provision of theCriminal Law, legal fiction of objective behavior has the largest quantities, mostwidespread and complexity. As per the relation between fictionalized behavior typeT1and T2, legal fiction of objective behavior could be further divided intofictionalizing non-criminal behavior as crime, fictionalizing crime as non-criminalbehavior, fictionalizing one type of crime as another, fictionalizing one crime as pluralcrimes, fictionalizing plural crimes as one crime, ect. Fictionalizing non-criminalbehavior as crime means, for certain policy or intention, the criminal law fictionalizesthe behavior non-conforming to constitution of crime as crime, for instance, theArticle102.2,155,236.2of the Criminal Law. Fictionalizing crime as non-criminalmeans, for certain policy or intention, the criminal law fictionalizes the crime asbehavior non-conforming to constitution of crime. This kind of legal fiction onlyexists in one clause of the Specific Provision of the Criminal Law, namely Article383.1of the Criminal Law. Fictionalizing one type of crime as another refers to, thecriminal law fictionalizes behavior type T1as T2, while T1and T2shares certaincommon grounds but the essences are not completely consistent, e.g. the Article196.3,last paragraph of Article248, Article267.2of the Criminal Law. The meaning offictionalizing one crime as plural crimes is, by means of mandatory provisions, thecriminal law changes the combined punishment rule of Article69of the Criminal Law,stipulating one crime which should be evaluated as a whole and judged as one crime,as plural crimes. This kind of legal fiction only exists in one clause of the SpecificProvision of the Criminal Law, namely Article204.2of the Criminal Law. Fictionalizing plural crimes as one crime refers to, in accordance with criminal lawtheory, under the circumstance that the behavior should be imposed combinedpunishment because of conducting plural crimes, considering certain policy orintention, the legislator compulsorily stipulates these plural criminal behaviors s onecrimes, thereby overstepping the combined punishment rule under the Article69ofthe Criminal Law. For instance, the continuing offence provision of Article153.3andanother10continuing offence provisions, the Article171.3,208.2, and398.2. Legalfiction of subject of crime contains fictionalizing people without identity as peoplewith identity, and fictionalizing people with identity as people without identity. Theformer refers to Article382.2, Article388(A).2, ect. The latter such as Article253.2.Legal fiction of subjective aspect contains the last paragraph of Article247, firstparagraph of Article248.1, first paragraph of Article289, and Article292.2. Legalfiction of other objectives mainly contains the Article149.2, Article367.3, Article383.1, last paragraph of Article383.3, and Article451.2.Chapter four distinguishes legal fiction from provision of attention, and discusses theclauses related to provision of attention under the specific provisions of Criminal Law.Provision of attention means, given the premise that criminal law has stipulate basicrules for certain issues, therein, for some circumstances which could be easilyconfused or ignored, in order to avoid being ignored or misunderstood by judicialofficers, the law particularly tick off these circumstances so as to highly remindjudicial officers to notice. Main features of provision of attention are suggestiveness,repeatability, identification, ect. Apart from some similarities between, for instance,both have the function of supplying deficiencies of principal provisions, and bothhave consistency in construction form, meanwhile, legal fiction and provision ofattention also have significant diversities in the aspect of relation between stipulatedcontent and basic provisions, application condition and functions. Therefore, we candistinguish legal fiction from provision of attention through aspects: whether theconclusion made under circumstance of non-existing of this provision is consistentwith existing of the provision; legislative intention of the provision; and whether the provision has universal applicability and popularization. Through grasping thedifferences between legal fiction and provision of attention, we can find severalprovisions of attentions under the Specific Provisions of the Criminal Law. Accordingto the content prompted by the provision, provisions of attentions under the SpecificProvisions of the Criminal Law could be roughly classify into seven types, including:being fully aware, penalizing as accomplice, sentencing combined punishment,convicting as offence of rape, convicting as duty crime, sentencing according tospecial provisions, and other contents need be prompted.In chapter five compares legal fiction with some other concepts which share certain"family resemblance" with legal fiction, such as the transforming offence, thestatutory one crime and one crime in penalty, as well as the presumption, ect.Transforming offence means that the crime exceeds the original basic element of thecrime in the process of a deliberate criminal act because of one more behavior or amore serious result. Based on the requirements of the principle of balance crime,Criminal Law specially provides that the crime occurred changes in this case, and usethe transformed criminal to convict the punishment criminal morphology. The reasonsof some of the articles of the Criminal Law both identified as convertible guilty termsand the terms of legal fiction mainly are that there are two aspects of the correlation inthe legal fictions of transformation guilty and extension of transforming offencebetween the legal fiction and transforming offence. This determines that the onlydifference of the legal fiction and transformation offence is the size of its epitaxial.The transformation offence only contains the types of that put numbers of crimefiction as one crime and then use this behavior fiction as the other act, as well as thesubjective aspects of the legal fiction type of legal fiction terms. Statutory offenseincludes two forms of the volume crime and combinative crime, therefore distinguishthe legal fiction and a legal crime must distinguish between the legal fiction, volumecrime and combinative crime. Volume crime and combinative crime actually arecommitting several crimes prepared for one type of legal fiction. The continuingoffence and transforming offence may exist "intersection" between the legal fiction and the place of a crime. The continuing offence and committed legal fiction actuallyare a crossing relationship, and the intersection is the11legal statutory of continuingoffence of the paragraph3of Article153, paragraph3of Article201, and Article263of the Criminal Law. There are some similarities in the implicated offence and thelegal fiction of putting numbers of crimes together as one type of crime, such as:using disposal of a crime instead of essentially number of crimes; the number ofbehaviors being the heterogeneity and the implications relations in a certain degree;and using one of felony convictions or put a felony punishing in heavier to instead ofnumber of crime. In fact, Implicated offence and the legal fiction have significantdissimilarity. The implicated offence decided to a crime punishment instead ofnumber of crimes, and the legal fiction is putting the numbers of crimes into onecrime legally. It is this distinction determines the implicated offence and legal fictiononly presents a parallel state within the framework of the current Criminal Law, anddoes not exist any provisions that are both the legal fiction and implicated offence.Presumed is that it can be known from the basic facts infer unknown presumed factsexist by law, as well as one evidence of rule that allows the parties use the proofs tocounter or overthrow itself. Legal fictions and presumptions are very similar in form.They both have assumed parts and involve two facts. As long as the existence of a factconfirmed, it will be able to produce the same legal effect as another fact, which isusing one fact of identification to push the existence of another fact. However, thereare large differences between them in the relationship between the two involved facts,the nature, the problem intent to solve, and the impacts of the burden of proof.The Chapter six introduces the certainty of setting rules and procedures of legalfiction in criminal law. Legal fiction, as a kind of legal assumption or untruth, is aspecial legislative activity. As it is not subject to restriction and examine of logic andconventional imputation principle, it maybe lead to some risks. Furthermore, onceappearing improper setting, there are several bad results which may break governmentby law, destroy freedom of people and so on. Thus, to avoid these risks setting legalfiction in criminal law shall be abided by establish regulations. First of all, setting of legal fiction shall follow principles of lawmaking fiction. Moreover, the scope ofsetting legal fiction is limited as the legislative subject and prohibiting judicialauthority and administrative organ make any forms of legal fictions. Secondly, obeythe equality principle. It means that when legislators apply for the legal fiction’s skills,they shall consider whether or not has equivalence for social harm degree undercircumstances of fiction and being fictionalized. Meanwhile, whether or not there areboth facts which can establish the relation of equivalence. Only the followedrequirements are conformed, it shall execute legal fiction. Thirdly, the setting shall fitfor harmonization principle of criminal functions. Namely, it should minimize as faras possible by restricting people’s right and free to achieve policy, intention oflawmaker and stability of social public order. Therefore, if not emphasizing socialprotection, it cannot maintain social order so that harm to life conditions of socialmembers. Legal fiction hereby can be established. Fourthly, modesty principle needsto be concerned. Specifically, both trying to avoid setting ’second law’ as legal ’daringvanguard’ to against to modesty principle and escape from realize unnecessary legalfiction using others’ ways. Fifthly, setting legal fiction conforms to judicialconvenience principle. Legislator should consider actual effect of applying for clausesof legal fiction which if they can solve judicial disputes and so on. In addition, due to’threaten’ maybe created legal fiction is not easy accepted by the public, it shouldsetup stricter specific legislative process to deal with and prevent from the ’thethreaten’ and also obtain sense of identity from the general public. Furthermore, inaddition of legislative procedure of general criminal provisions, there are somespecific legislative processes to rule using of legal fiction’s skills and set its clauses.The specific processes as followed:1) with regard to legal fiction, specific publicparticipation procedures contain legislative hearing and legislative discussion meeting.For eliminating misunderstanding the best way is the active openness rather thanhiding intentionally. Moreover, achieving degree of prediction and understanding ofthe public is helpful for removing misunderstanding and strengthening feel accepted.The best measure is that the public can join formulation of legal fiction clauses.2)Setting legal fiction’s explaining procedure. It indicates that the subject of power executing power shall introduce reasons of behaviors to keep from misuse of power.This is the key point for institutional arrangement of restriction of powers. In addition,only explaining about behaviors it can be understood, accepted and obeyed by thesocial public. Finally, it is beneficial to the basic of legitimacy.3) Setting examine,explain and abolish monitoring programs. In order to realize purposes which includelaws established be general observed and laws obeyed are good law, not only settingprocedures are paid attention, but think highly of monitoring programs mentioned. Itmeans that provisions of legal fiction are examined actively, positively to collectexisting issues during the actual application. Therefore, hard to applying for legalfiction should setup legislative interpretation and artificial improper, losing ’life force"of legal fiction’ provisions should be abolished.更多还原