【作者】 王彦强（王强）；

【导师】 蔡道通；

【作者基本信息】 南京师范大学 ， 刑法学， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 法官不理会琐碎之事(Deminimis non curat praetor),对于极轻微的反社会行为,任何国家都不可能作为犯罪处理,犯罪成立有罪量要求乃法治国家的共识。从域外经验来看,域外刑事立法多采仅定性的行为类型立法模式,实体法中基本不涉及罪量的内容,犯罪成立的罪量要求基本上是通过它的反面——微罪出罪——展开：在程序法上,通过警察的微罪处置、酌定不起诉、告诉与自诉以及法官裁量权的行使等制度设计,为微罪出罪提供路径：在实体法上,则通过可罚的违法性、社会相当性等理论建构,为微罪出罪提供实体法上的理论支撑。在我国,犯罪成立同样有罪量要求,也同样有程序法上微罪出罪的制度设计,但与域外经验不同的是,缘于二元制裁体系和以行为程度区分犯罪与一般违法的交叉重合式立法模式,我国刑法形成了众多成文的、正面积极的、作为犯罪构成必要条件的罪量因素规定。这种“规模化的、积极的、成文的”罪量因素可谓是我国刑法独具特色的立法现象。第一,成文的罪量因素在我国刑法中有何表现?在总则中,罪量因素包含于刑法第13条犯罪概念的但书规定中。不过,但书规定不应当仅仅视为罪量因素的表征。遵循司法刑法学的逻辑要求,但书作为犯罪司法概念的刑法第13条的组成部分,应当是在第13条前段体现形式理性的刑事违法性的积极、类型化判断的基础上,进行体现实质理性的社会危害性的消极、个别化判断的载体。因此,但书不仅仅是轻微违法的犯罪阻却事由,而应当理解为包含阻却构成要件符合性、阻却违法性和阻却有责性的全部实质内容。在分则中,罪量因素则表现为刑法中明文规定的、体现行为程度、作为犯罪成立必要条件的“数额较大”、“情节严重”、“造成严重后果”等类似内容。“数额”、“情节”、“后果”才可谓是真正独具中国特色的罪量因素规定。第二,积极的、成文的罪量因素在犯罪构成体系中如何定位?建构包涵罪量因素的犯罪构成体系,就是罪量因素在犯罪论体系中的定位问题。罪量因素难以整体作为处罚条件；只有行为获利、悔罪表现等极个别不法中立的罪量因素,应当作为犯罪成立的第四要件——真正的客观处罚条件；而丢失枪支不报、滥用职权等罪中的“严重后果”、“重大损失”等因素,是可罚违法程度的表征,属于不法构成要素,只是因为此类后果与行为之间客观关联上的特殊性,使其无法还原为典型的危害结果,对此类后果只须有认知预见,无须考虑意志因素,即可认定故意成立,因而它们是一种非典型的不法构成要素；其余绝大多数罪量因素均可还原为身份、行为、结果等典型的不法构成要素。作为构成要件要素的罪量因素(即罪量构成要素、罪量要素)是我国刑法中成文的罪量因素规定的最核心、最主要的内容,罪量要素在事实面和价值面两个层面的特殊性,使其在遭遇诸多犯罪问题时,定会擦出别样的火花。第三,罪量要素的事实面特征,乃是罪量要素作为成文化的构成要件要素,相较于大陆法系刑法而言的特殊性。与大陆法系刑法消极的、阻却犯罪成立的罪量判断不同,在我国,罪量要求成文化、类型化为构成要件该当的具体要素。因此,罪量要素就应当首先是事实该当的构成要件符合性判断。此即罪量要素的事实面特征。根据这一特质,作为违法性表征的罪量构成要件要素,应当是行为人主观认识的内容,这是责任主义的当然要求。而对罪量(数额)要素的认识错误,也应当依据错误论原理判断,尤其是在共同犯罪之不同共犯人对罪量认识不一致(认识错误)的情形中,犯罪总额说只能解决共犯的客观归责问题,而主观归责则必须结合各共犯人的主观认识个别化判断。在罪量(数额)共犯中,若部分共犯人对罪量(数额)没有认识或认识错误,只能在主客观一致的范围内承担责任；部分共犯人隐瞒所得数额,至多可能作为判断被隐瞒者对全案数额是否有故意认识的间接证据；依据法定符合说,正犯的客体错误或打击错误不影响共犯人既遂之责;正犯实行过限或实行减少,共犯人则应当在构成要件重合的范围内承担既遂之责；正犯另起犯意,自当单独负责,不得归责于其他共犯人。而罪量(数额)犯未遂,也可谓是另一种认识错误问题,尤其是在“以数额巨大的财物为盗窃目标”而分文未得的场合,如何确定未遂犯适用的法定刑档,就成为问题。从传统的加重构成说的立场,可以通过严格区别作为主观意图的行为人主观追求的目标数额与作为“情节严重”的“以数额巨大的财物为盗窃目标”,以前者来确定相应的法定刑档,当行为人主观意图不明确或无法证明时,存疑有利于被告,只能选择基本犯的法定刑档。而从区分加重构成与量刑规则的立场,作为危害结果的数额巨大等罪量要素,有着不同于典型(加重)构成要件和典型量刑规则的特殊性,可称为罪量加重构成,此结果程度类罪量加重构成是基于基本犯结果的危险性而加重刑罚的,当基本犯未遂时,就已经丧失了加重的依据,不得论以加重犯的未遂犯。第四,罪量要素的价值面特征,则是罪量要素相较于同为“构成要件要素”的罪体要素而言的。构成要件的符合性判断具有违法性的推定机能,罪量和罪体要素均为构成要件的具体内容,因此,二者的符合性判断都具备违法性的推定机能,但二者机能的发挥却不尽相同：罪体要素是从横向、此罪彼罪的意义上表征某一犯罪的行为类型,体现的是公权力的界域(将刑法没有类型化的行为类型排除在公权力处置范围之外);而罪量要素则是从纵向、轻罪重罪(罪与违法)的意义上表征某一犯罪的行为程度,体现的是公权力的分工(将纳入公权力处置范围的行为,根据其违法程度,分别给予刑罚或者行政处罚)。二者的区别决定了罪体和罪量评价之间的位阶性,即罪量的行为程度判断必须是在罪体的行为类型确证、定型之后方可进行。因此,单位犯罪、共同犯罪、法条竞合等这些解决行为形态、行为定型的行为类型性理论,无法适用于罪量问题；或者说正确的判断位阶是,首先运用这些理论,进行行为类型、行为形态意义上的定型判断,之后才考虑罪量要素,决定公权力的分工。因此,在单位犯罪中,不论单位与自然人犯罪的罪量标准是否统一,首先是运用单位犯罪理论判断自然人的行为可否拟制为单位犯罪(包括单位决策、为单位利益、以单位名义等实质条件和法定性的形式条件)：如果不能,则仅仅是自然人犯罪,再依照自然人犯罪的罪量标准加以处罚；如果可以拟制,则应当适用单位犯罪特殊条款,依据单位犯罪的罪量标准,决定责任人的刑事责任和单位罚金。在共同犯罪中,首先在不考虑罪量要素的情况下,判断是否成立共同“犯罪”,决定参与人客观归责的范围；然后根据立法、司法解释所确定的罪量标准,决定对行为人给予的公权力处置(刑罚抑或行政罚、轻刑抑或重刑)。这样,不同罪量标准的单位与自然人共同犯罪、罪量标准不同的犯罪部分共同(构成要件部分重合)以及所谓“虚拟共同犯罪”等情状下的推理难题均可迎刃而解。在法条竞合中,法条竞合与想象竞合的结构差异,表明不必区分二者的“大竞合论”不能成立。法益同一是判断法条竞合的实质标准；“本法另有规定的,依照规定”是注意规定,是法条竞合适用原则的重申。罪量要素的特殊性表明,应当先运用法条竞合理论决定行为类型的定型(是普通法条行为类型还是特别法条行为类型),然后再根据罪量要素,判断该行为是一般违法抑或犯罪、轻罪抑或重罪；法条竞合特别关系没有重法补充适用的余地,只有交叉、双包容关系下的法条竞合,方有重法优于轻法的适用。更多还原

【Abstract】 The judge ignored trivial things (Deminimis non curat praetor). For the slightest antisocial behavior, no country may be treated it as a crime. It is the consensus among the countries under the rule of law that the crime has quantitative requirements. From the foreign experience, generally, the criminal laws in foreign countries have not included any quantitative contents for crime. The criminal quantitative requirements are basically showed through the problem how to determine the slight behavior is not a crime:In the procedural law, there provide many paths to solve this problem, such as "Police disposal","Not to prosecute","No trial without complaint","Private prosecution","The judge’s discretion" and so on; In the substantive law, the theory such as the theory of punishable illegally and the theory of social adaption, which provided the theoretical support to solve this problem.In China, the crime also has quantitative requirements, and the procedural law also provides many similar paths. But unlike the foreign experience, in Chinese Criminal Law, there formed a variety of quantitative factors which is written, positive and as a necessary condition of the crime."Vast, Positive and Written" quantitative factors for criminal constitution, that is a unique phenomenon in Criminal Law.First, which belong to the written quantitative factors in criminal law?(1) Criminal quantitative factors contained in the proviso about article13in Chinese Criminal Law. But the proviso should not just consider as a characterization of criminal quantitative factors. Following the judicature logic demand, the proviso, which as apart of criminal judicial concept (article13), should summarize all essential matters which negate the constitution of a crime. Not only about slight illegal (quantitative factors), but also including any other substance negative reasons such as justified acts and expectant possibility (Zumutbarkeit).(2) Criminal quantitative factors is behaved for the provision such as "large amount","serious circumstances" and "serious consequences", which the criminal law definitely prescribes, reflects behavior degree, and also the necessary conditions of the constitution of a crime."Amount","Plot" and "consequences" are truly Chinese characteristics’ Criminal quantitative factors.Second, how to locate the active, written criminal quantitative factors in the constitutive system of a crime? It is difficult to consider quantitative factors as a whole to be the objective punishment conditions. Only the illegal neutral quantitative factors such as behavioral profit, can be taken as the fourth element of crime-the real objective punishment condition; and the "serious consequences" or "heavy losses" which provided in the crime of failing to report about the matter of losing guns and the crime of abusing authority, as the characterization of the illegal degree, is the element of illegal constitutions, because of the particularity of the objective link between such consequences and the behavior, which decides that we cannot revert such consequences to the typical hazard results. The only need to foresee such consequences, without regard to the willing factor, can be identified the mens rea. So it is an atypical illegal element. The rest of the vast majority of the quantitative factors can restore to a typical illegal element such as the identity, behavior and consequences. The quantitative constitutive elements are different from the theory of punishable illegally and the qualitative elements of crime, because of those characteristics in fact and value. The quantitative factors as the criminal constitutive elements (namely quantitative constitutive elements or quantitative elements), is the main content about the written quantitative factors in our criminal law.Third, the quantitative elements’ features in factual surface, is the particularity which the quantitative elements as the written constitutive elements, compared with the foreign criminal law. In foreign countries, the quantitative judgment is almost negative judgment. But in our country, criminal quantitative requirement have transformed to criminal constitutive elements. Therefore, at first, criminal quantitative elements should be the factual coincidence judgment of criminal constitution. This is the quantitative elements’ features in factual surface.According to this trait, the quantitative elements should be the content of subjective knowing, and which is also the requirement of the responsibility principle. And for recognizing mistake about criminal quantitative elements, should be also based on the theory of error, especially in common crime,"The total number of crime" can only solve the accomplice’s objective imputation, and the subjective liability must be individual judged combining with the joint offenders’ subjective knowing. If someone of the joint offenders do not realize or mistake the total amounts, who only assume the responsibility within the range of subjective and objective consistent. When part of the co-perpetrators concealed the proceeds of crime, that can be mostly used as the indirect evidence to prove other co-perpetrators’ recognizes. Perpetrators’ object mistake or method mistake, which do not affect the joint offenders’ accomplished responsibility according to the view of "statutory compliance". When perpetrators implement over the limit or not sufficient, the other joint offenders should just assume the accomplished responsibility in the range of constituent elements coincident. When the perpetrator had new criminal intention, it should be assumed the responsibility by himself, and should not impute to the other joint offenders.And the attempted crime also can be considered as another recognizing mistake problem. Especially when someone take the huge amount of property as the theft target but get nothing, how to determine the applicable punish standard have became the problem.(1) Form the traditional aggravated constitution’s position, the problem can be solved through strictly distinguishing between the target’s amounts as subjective intention and "huge amount of property for theft target" as the "serious circumstances", and to determine the corresponding punish standard according to the former. If the offender’s subjective intention is not clear or cannot prove, it can only choose the basic crime’s legal punish standard.(2) And from the position about distinguish between aggravated constitutions and sentencing rules, the quantitative elements such as "huge amount", which is different from typical criminal constitutive elements and typical sentencing rules, it can be called "quantitative aggravated constitution". For quantitative aggravated constitution, aggravating punishment is just based on the risk of the basic crime. When the basic crime is attempted, it has lost the basis of increasing punishment, and may not be considered as the aggravated offense’s attempted.Fourth, the quantitative elements’ features in value surface, is the particularity that compared to the same "criminal constitutive elements"-the qualitative elements. Both the quantitative elements and the qualitative elements have the function to presume the illegality, but there also have some differences:The criminal qualitative elements embody the criminal behavior’s types, and reflect the boundaries of the public power (to exclude the behavior types which is not provided in the criminal law); But the criminal quantitative elements only show the criminal behavior’s degree, just reflect the division of public power (to decide criminal punishment or administrative punishment according to the illegal degree).The differences above decide the sequence between qualitative elements’judgment and quantitative elements’judgment. Namely the judgment of behavior’s degree must be after the judgment of behavior’s type. Therefore, the theory such as Corporate crime, Common crime, concurrence of articles, which solve the problem of behavior’s type, cannot suitable for the problem of quantitative elements, that is to say, first, we should use those theories to judge the behavior’s type, and then, dispose the problem of quantitative elements to divide the division of public power.Therefore, in corporate crime, no matter the quantitative standard between corporation and natural person is unified or not, first of all, we should use the theory of corporate crime to judge the behavior whether can be considered as corporate crime or not, if not, it is only a natural person’s crime; if yes, it must use the special article of corporate crime to decide the punishment for both responsible persons and corporation.In common crime. First, without considering the quantitative elements, we should judge whether the common "crime" is established or not, and then, according to quantitative elements’ standard, decide to give what kind of public power’s punishment. In this way, many problems caused by quantitative elements in common crime can be solved easily.In concurrence of articles, the structural difference between concurrence of articles and imaginative concurrence shows that the viewpoint that no need to distinguish strictly the concurrence of articles and the imaginative concurrence cannot be established. The identity of legal interest is the substantive standard to judge the concurrence of articles."If the article has an additional stipulation, following this stipulation" is reaffirmed the applicable principles of concurrence of articles. The particularity of quantitative elements indicated that, first, we must use the theory of concurrence of articles to decide the type of behavior, and then according to quantitative elements to determine the division of public powers. Only "cross, double-inclusive relationship", we can use the principle of "serious article is superior to the light article".更多还原