刑法适用解释研究

【作者】 王凯石；

【导师】 陈忠林；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 刑法学， 2006， 博士

【摘要】 司法人员在个案中适用刑法时必然会对刑法进行解释，这是客观存在的事实。禁止司法人员解释刑法不仅在理论上没有必要，而且在实践中也没有实现的可能。但为了防止司法人员任意解释，导致解释权的滥用，需要我们对刑法适用解释的规律进行深入地研究，以便提出规制的方法，促使合理的解释结论得以形成。本文分为引言、正文和结论三部分，对刑法适用解释进行了比较深入、系统的研究。在引言部分，笔者对否定刑法适用解释存在所造成的危害、理论研究的现状、本文的实用价值和理论意义、研究的方法等问题进行了分析和阐述。笔者认为，对刑法适用解释采取漠视的态度，不愿意承认刑法适用解释的存在的传统观念已经在司法实践中产生了严重的后果。它一定程度上导致了司法人员在没有解释之名之下对解释权的滥用和任意解释，导致了司法人员责任心的缺乏、司法效率的低下、司法人员对司法解释的严重依赖、法条主义思想和“恶法亦法”观念的盛行。本文研究的意义主要在于为司法人员解释刑法提供规则和方法指引，研究的基本方法是理论联系实际的方法，全文时时注意将笔者办理、讨论、调查的实际案例以及最高司法机关公布的典型案例与理论分析结合起来进行论述。本文的正文部分共分为五章。第一章，作为事实存在的刑法适用解释。本章对刑法适用解释究竟是客观存在的事实抑或只是理论假设、刑法适用解释存在的理论根据、存在的范围等问题进行了探讨。通过实证分析，笔者指出，刑法适用解释的存在是一个客观事实，而且，案件越复杂、疑难，司法人员对刑法进行解释的现象就越明显。刑法适用解释的存在有极其深刻的理论根据，它的存在是“解释”概念的应有之义，是有限理性的不得已选择，是从抽象的人到具体的人的必然要求，是面向现实生活世界的需要，是克服语言局限性的手段。解释不单是指静态的解释结果和解释主体就解释结果对外部进行的说明，更主要的是指解释主体内心对文本的主观理解，它是一个动态的心理过程。理解就是解释，应用包含了理解，理解的本质就是解释和应用。近代以来，基于严格的权力分立理论和对司法人员解释刑法会导致司法腐败的担忧，人们期盼立法者能够制定出自足、完美、不需解释就能自动适用的法律，而理性主义的神话又为其提供了理论支持。然而，现今对人仅具有有限理性的认知使司法人员解释法律成为不得已的选择。要把立法中抽象的人还原为个案中具体的人，要把抽象的法律规则转换为具体的裁判规范，必须要摆脱近代以来以自然科学为楷模的科学主义对法学形成的专制，重新认识法学的实践智慧之本性，回归现实生活世界，承认司法人员的主观能动性和他们为追求个案正义而对刑法进行的解释。此外，语言的有限与现实生活的无穷、语义的变迁、语言的模糊性、语境对语义的影响等因素也决定了司法人员在适用刑法过程中需要对刑法进行解释。理解即解释，刑法适用解释存在于所有的刑事案件之中。在简单案件中，由于司法人员的前理解与刑法文本表达的内容具有一致性，从而无阻碍的建立了刑法条文与案件事实之间的对应关系，因此，它表现为直接理解或自然解释。但在疑难案件中，司法人员必须要站在一定的解释立场，运用必要的解释方法，对刑法条文语词的多个含义进行选择，才能建立起刑法条文与案件事实之间的对应关系，因此，它表现为典型解释。第二章，刑法适用解释概念的法理分析及展开。在本章中，笔者首先界定了刑法适用解释的定义，分析了刑法适用解释的特点，然后再对刑法适用解释的主体、对象、地位、功能和基本观念予以一一讨论。笔者认为，刑法适用解释是指司法人员在个案中适用刑法时对刑法条文含义的理解、分析和说明。刑法适用解释与刑法适用、刑法自由裁量权具有密切关系，但又有区别。刑法适用解释是与个案密切关联的应用性解释，其目的在于建构个案适用的刑法裁判规范，其效力仅限于个案的范围。此外，它还具有主观性和价值判断的特点。刑法适用解释的主体是广义的司法人员，既包括法官，也应当包括检察官和侦查人员。刑法适用解释的对象有狭义和广义之分，狭义的对象仅指刑法条文，而广义的对象则为刑法条文和一切影响司法人员理解刑法条文的材料。刑法适用解释与刑法司法解释、刑法立法解释具有明显的区别。对于三者的地位，笔者认为，刑法适用解释在刑法解释体制中应当居于核心地位，刑法司法解释是刑法适用解释的补充手段，刑法立法解释只是刑法适用解释的例外情形。从功能上来说，刑法适用解释是克服刑法局限性的重要工具，是实现个案正义的锐利武器，是适应社会变革的调节器，是连接刑法条文与案件事实的桥梁和纽带。此外，司法人员在进行刑法适用解释时，必须要坚持没有“恶法”和严格解释两个基本观念。没有“恶法”不是主张刑法适用解释万能，不是指在任何案件中必定能够得到绝对符合正义观念的处理结果，它只是要求司法人员在观念上应当预设和相信立法者不会制定出一个非正义的法律，司法人员应当依照人们认可的道理来理解刑法，选择刑法条文文字的含义，在解释许可的限度内尽量避免“恶法”的出现。刑法的极端严厉性、迫不得已性、刑事诉讼中国家追诉的主动性以及罪刑法定原则的限制功能决定了刑法适用解释必须坚持严格解释的观念。然而，严格解释不是指只能作有利于被告人的解释，严格解释的“严格”是相对于自由解释的“自由”而言的。严格解释归根到底是指在刑法文本可以接纳的范围内的合理解释或者正确解释。第三章，罪刑法定原则与刑法适用解释的限度。在本章中，笔者将罪刑法定原则置于法治的视野之下，根据罪刑法定原则内容的时代发展，从理论上将罪刑法定原则分为形式的罪刑法定原则和实质的罪刑法定原则，并对两者允许的解释限度分别进行了论述，然后在分析它们优缺点的基础上，提出自己的观点。笔者认为，形式的罪刑法定原则是形式法治观念在刑法上的反映，它将罪刑法定原则的内容绝对化，它反映了概念法学的基本观念，现今的法律实证主义仍与其有着千丝万缕的联系。形式的罪刑法定原则立足于自由主义思想中的个人主义价值观，将确定性视为法律至高无上的价值。在形式的罪刑法定原则下，司法人员只能依照严格文义来理解、解释刑法。严格规则主义体现的是信条式的体系性思考模式，它虽然有许多优点，但也造成了规则与价值的对立，忽略了具体案件中正义的实现，减少了解决问题的可能性，并且由于立法上抽象概念的大量使用，降低了刑法作为行为规范的功能。实质的罪刑法定原则是以实质法治为指导，从“法”的内在价值方面来理解罪刑法定原则。它体现了社会福利型国家和对守法者充分关注的时代要求，从而突破了形式的束缚，赋予了罪刑法定原则中“法”与“法定”新的内容。实质的罪刑法定原则将实质正义的实现作为司法的唯一标准，为了实现正义，司法人员可以不受刑法文本的制约，自由的解释刑法。实质的罪刑法定原则体现的是问题式的思考模式，如果将其贯彻到底，将导致刑法文本的完全消解，最后坠入法律虚无主义的泥潭。笔者认为，在现代法治背景下，法治和罪刑法定原则都应当是形式与实质的和合。司法人员在解释刑法时，必须运用司法智慧，寻求法律的稳定与变动、保守与创新、原则与具体、整体与部分之间的平衡。在刑法适用解释限度的问题上，司法人员必须要考虑法律外在形式与内在价值的双重要求，建立以价值为导向的可能文义为解释限度的理论模式。在价值导向理论模式中，司法人员把法律看作是一种可以理解的规则所组成的体系，但法律规则的意义由司法人员通过那些归属于规则的价值加以控制。由于正义是法律的首要价值，所以正义也应当是刑法适用解释的实质限度，司法人员必须将案件处理结果的公正、合理作为刑法适用解释的根本目的。但是，在实现正义的过程中，司法人员绝对不能忽视刑法文本对他们的约束，刑法条文的可能文义是刑法适用解释的形式限度。在可能文义的限度内，正义的要求是决定刑法条文文字含义选择的决定性标准。文字的可能文义不是一个绝对确定的点，而是一个具有一定伸缩性的语义区，它的边界由正义的价值观、事理和事物本质的要求、人们通常的语言习惯等因素决定。在对刑法条文文字含义进行取舍时，符合正义观念的整体的可能文义相对于孤立语词的含义来说具有优先性。此外，笔者对刑法适用解释中可能出现的两种极端情形提出了处理的方法。笔者还认为，司法人员必须要认识到类推解释的两张面孔，刑法适用解释要禁止的不是作为思维方式及符合思维规律的类推方法，而是创制法条式的类推适用。因为在体系解释、当然解释和部分扩张解释、限制解释中，司法人员都在自觉或不自觉的运用类推，这不仅是必要的，也是无法禁止的。鉴于正义在刑法适用解释中的重要地位，笔者对历史上的正义理论进行了简单的梳理并指出，历史上的正义理论均有将正义神秘化的倾向，从而使其成为脱离于人类社会之外的客观永恒的超验的东西，其判断最终只能寄托于少数社会精英的发现。这样的正义只能通过话语霸权来获得权威，最终必会导致专制。笔者主张，正义其实并不神秘，它是人类社会的产物，同样它也存在于你我所处的人类社会之中，正义在本质上就是一种符合民众普遍认同的“常识、常理、常情”的价值判断，它的判断主体是民众而不是个别的社会精英。笔者提出，可以依据公众普遍认同的“常识、常理、常情”使正义的解说获得权威性，从而揭开正义的神秘面纱。刑法适用解释不能够违背“常识、常理、常情”的基本要求，这不仅是现代民主国家的必然要求，也是现代共识真理观的必然结论。通过“常识、常理、常情”来解读正义，最大的优点就在于突出了民众这一正义判断的主体，从而有利于刑法适用解释获得公众认同。第四章，刑法适用解释的方法。笔者首先依照传统的分类对文义解释、体系解释、历史解释和目的解释进行了较详尽的论述，然后又对在实践中经常被采用的其他解释方法如扩张解释、限制解释、当然解释、反对解释和比较解释进行了必要的讨论，最后指出了解释方法之间的位阶关系。文义是刑法适用解释的起点，文义解释是刑法适用解释的基本方法。文义解释体现的是典型的“三位一体”的线性思维方式，它坚持了法律的确定性、安定性第一、立法至上和权力分立的价值观念。文义解释要绝对有效，必须要求语言具有绝对确定的、充分的表现力，但是语言的表现力往往不足，这就决定了文义解释必然具有局限性。在文义解释不能奏效时，司法人员必须求助于其他的解释方法进行解释，并且可能的文义又为其他的解释方法划定了界限。体系解释是站在法律秩序统一性的价值立场，利用法律条文之间的相互关联性进行解释的方法。体系解释要充分有效地发挥作用，必须需要一个无矛盾、和谐、自足、圆满的法律体系。然而，由于体系解释借助的仅是法律的外部形式体系，而立法者理性的不足决定了法律体系的必然不圆满，所以，体系解释肯定存在局限性。在体系解释不能奏效时，司法人员必须求助于法律的内部价值体系，运用目的解释的方法进行解释。历史解释属于广义的目的解释的范畴，它认为刑法适用解释的根本目的在于探求立法者在立法之时的立法意图。历史解释要能有效地发挥作用，必须满足三个条件：每个刑法条文背后都存在一个统一的立法意图；统一的立法意图均能够通过历史文献而获得；已经获得的立法意图仍能适用于当下的案件且不会出现明显非正义的处理结果。显然，这些条件经常不能得到满足，从而使历史解释陷于困境，最后不得不求助于客观的目的解释。目的解释是按照法律规范的现实意义和法律自身的目的所作的合理解释，它探求的是法律现今符合事理的客观目的。目的解释作为决疑的重要方法，它立足于立法者会合理立法的理论预设，主张面向事物本身，从事理、事物的本质来识别法律的目的。由于目的解释往往要求司法人员突破法律形式去追求内在价值，它给了司法人员较大的自由解释权，所以怎样防止解释权被滥用是目的解释面临的主要问题。此外，笔者还对其他常见的解释方法一一进行了论述。笔者认为，由于扩张解释和限制解释不能说明对文字含义进行扩张和限制的理由，因此，它们并不是独立的解释方法，而只是运用其他解释方法如体系解释、历史解释、目的解释的方法进行解释后，以文字的通常含义为参照对解释结果进行的评价。司法人员进行扩张解释必须满足两个条件，一是文义的扩张必须符合正义及“常识、常理、常情”的要求；二是文义的扩张必须不超出刑法条文文字的可能含义的范围。限制解释的根据不是有利于被告人的原则，而是正义原则的要求。当然解释、反对解释和比较解释也都有各自独有的功能和特点。在本章的最后，笔者在说明解释方法功能的基础上，对解释方法之间是否存在位阶排列之论争进行了分析，并得出结论：解释方法之间虽然存在冲突与矛盾，但每种解释方法体现的价值立场决定了它们之间的位阶关系。总体来说，它们具有一个从文义解释到体系解释，再到历史解释，最后到目的解释的位阶排列。在刑法适用解释中，由于罪刑法定原则的限制功能，比较解释只是其他解释方法的辅助手段，目的在于加强其他解释方法的可信度，它并不能独立地决定刑法条文的含义。此外，解释方法之间的位阶排列虽然是司法经验的总结，体现了司法操作的便利性，但它也不是绝对的。每种解释方法均有优缺点，解释方法的采用最终取决于实现个案正义的需要。此外，笔者还指出，如果对每种解释方法都不拘泥于传统含义而作扩大理解，认为文义解释的“文义”既包括通常文义也包括可能文义，体系解释的“体系”既包括法律的外部形式体系也包括内在价值体系，历史解释的“立法意图”既包括立法原意也包括现今应当具有的合理意图，目的解释的“目的”既包括客观目的也包括合理立法者的主观目的，则不管采用哪种解释方法都可以得出相同的解释结论，解释方法之间的矛盾可以得到消除，从而超越了解释方法之间的位阶排列之争，所有的解释方法都可以归结于合理解释。第五章，刑法适用解释结论的形成。在本章中，笔者先从本体论的角度揭示了刑法适用解释结论形成的思维过程，认为它具体表现为主观与客观的融合，事实与规范之间的往返和主体间的互动三个不同侧面。在此基础上，笔者紧扣解释结论形成的思维过程的特点，提出要促成合理的解释结论得以形成，除了司法人员要遵守刑法适用解释的基本观念、解释的限度、解释的方法、解释方法之间的位阶排列等提出的要求外，从制度建设和程序完善的角度考虑，应当把重点放在如何形成充分的解释意见竞争选择机制以及适度引进司法民主和加强法律论证与解释理由公开等方面。在批判主观解释论与客观主义，客观解释论与主观主义的基础上，笔者指出，刑法适用解释结论的形成既不是主客二分模式下价值无涉的绝对客观，也不是直觉主义者所主张的绝对主观，而是主观与客观的并存。刑法适用解释是主观的，原因在于司法人员在解释时不能超脱于自己的前见、前理解之外。前见、前理解是解释得以进行的前提和出发点。然而，解释又是客观的，这是因为解释总是受到传统、权威、共同体和案件事实本身的制约，而不是任意进行的。刑法适用解释结论的形成既不是先确定事实，然后解释法律的过程，也不是先作出判断，理由只是随后的注脚与附加的过程，真正的解释应当是司法人员不断地在事实与规范之间往返，最终形成解释结论的过程。一方面，司法人员以刑法条文为指引，将案件中的生活事实抽象化、类型化为法律事实，实现事实向法律规范的靠拢；另一方面，司法人员针对案件事实的具体情况，将未经加工的刑法条文通过解释使其具体化为符合本案要求的裁判规范，实现刑法规范向案件事实的靠拢。此外，刑法适用解释结论的形成还表现为主体间的互动，它可以分为两个方面：一是作为读者的司法人员与刑法文本、作为作者的立法者之间的互动，通过互动最后达到视域融合从而得出解释结论；二是不同解释主体之间的互动，通过不同解释主体之间的意见竞争，促使司法人员错误的前见被修正，正确的前见被选择出来。为了促使合理的解释结论得以形成，必须建立一种解释主体之间的良性对话、商谈机制，使不同的解释意见能够形成充分的竞争，在争论中使合理的解释意见得到采纳。同时，还必须适度的引入司法民主，让民众通过合理的方式介入到司法过程中来。此外，笔者在实证调查的基础上指出，我国司法文书写作内容内外有别的做法反映了强调权威与服从，忽视沟通与说服的传统司法观念。然而，在现代法治背景下，司法人员必须对解释结论进行法律论证与理由公开，以加强司法人员与民众之间的对话与沟通，形成对刑法适用解释的外部监督。在结论部分，笔者对全文形成的观点进行了简短的概括与总结。更多还原

【Abstract】 Judicial officer will necessarily interpret the criminal law when it is applied in the case, and this is an objective fact. Not only from the view of theory is it unnecessary to prohibit judicial officer interpreting criminal law, but also does it have no possibility to be realized in the practice. Nevertheless, in order to prevent judicial officer interpreting freely and thus abusing the power, we are required to take a profound study on the rule of criminal law applicable interpretation, so as to bring forward the methods of regulating and promote the reasonable interpretation conclusion to be formed. This thesis is divided into three parts: the introduction, the main body and the conclusion, which carry a profounder and systematic study on the criminal law’s applicable interpretation.In the part of introduction, the writer analyzes such problems as the harm caused by negating the existence of interpretation, the status quo on this problem’s theoretical study, the thesis’s practical value, its theoretical significance and the study methods, who thinks that because the neglecting attitude is taken toward the interpretation and some traditional idea of unwillingly accepting the interpretation’s existence has made serious consequence in the judicial practice, to some extent, which led to a fact that the judicial officer abuse the interpreting power and interpret freely without being authorized, the absence of responsibility, the low judicial validity, their grievous reliance on judicial interpretation, the idea of doctrinarism and "bad law often goes" prevailing. Studying on those problems of this thesis mainly lies in providing rules and methods instruction for judicial officer, and its basic study method unites theory and practice, meanwhile, linked the way of academic analysis, the whole text always lays attention to dissertate the actual case that the writer has ever handled, discussed and investigated, and the typical case the supreme judiciary issued.The main body consists of five chapters. The first chapter: criminal law applicable interpretation exists as a fact. In this chapter, the writer probes that whether the interpretation is subjective reality or is just a theory hypothesis, probes the theoretical foundation of interpretation and its existing area, and through positive analysis, who points out that the existence of interpretation is really a fact, even the more complicated and doubtful the case is, the more obvious the phenomenon that judicial officer interprets the criminal law is.For the interpretation’s existence, there is extremely a profound theoretical foundation, and it is a due meaning contained in the concept "interpretation", moreover, it’s a have-to selection within the person’s limited ration and a necessary demand from abstract person to specific person, a measure to confront the living world and overcome the language limitation. Not merely does the interpretation mean a static interpretation result and which the interpreter explains to the outside, but more mainly means the interpreter’s subjective understanding on the text from his inner heart, which is a dynamic psychological course. Understanding is interpretation and application contains understanding whose essence is just interpretation and application. Since the modern time, theory of severe power division and the worry to judicial corruption caused by judicial officer’s interpretation, people hope a self-sufficient, perfect and self-applying without interpretation law can be enacted by the legislator, furthermore, the myth of rationalism offered its theoretical support. However, limited cognition to the person’s limited ration makes interpretation being a have-to selection, so in order to return the abstract people in the legislation to the specific people in the case, to turn the abstract legal rules to concrete judgment rules, the autarchy of science, the representative of physical science since modern times, to the jurisprudence must be shaken off, so as to re-acknowledge the nature of law’s practical wisdom, return to real life, and accept judicial officer’s subjectivity and their interpretation on criminal law for pursuing the case justice. Moreover, language limitation and true-life’s limitlessness, semantic change, lingual illegibility and the influence of context to semantic also determine that judicial officer need interpret criminal law during its application.Understanding is interpretation, and it exists in all the criminal cases. To the simple one, because the judicial officer’s pre-understanding corresponds with the content of criminal legal text, and therefore establishes a corresponding relationship without hindrance between criminal law items and case fact, it presents a direct interpretation or a natural interpretation. But to some doubtful ones, judicial officer must be on a certain stand of interpretation, using necessary interpreting methods to select from the multi-meanings of item’s expression, only by which can the corresponding relationship be established between criminal law item and case fact.The second chapter: the jurisprudent analysis and outspread on the concept of criminal law applicable interpretation. In this chapter, the writer first defines the interpretation and analyzes its characters, then discusses the subject of criminal law applicable interpretation, its object, statue, function and basic ideas.The writer thinks that criminal law applicable interpretation is judicial officer’s understanding, analysis and explanation to the meaning of the criminal law items when the criminal law is applied in the case. Interpretation, application and free verdict power have close relationship whereas have distinction. Interpretation is an applicable interpretation related closely to case, its purpose lying in constructing criminal law’s judging rule and its validity within the case range. Besides, it has characters of subjectivity and value judgment. In wide meaning, the interpretation subject of criminal law is judicial officer, not only including the judge, but also including the prosecutor and the detective officer. To the object of criminal law applicabe interpretation, the wide meaning differentiate from its narrow meaning, narrow object only means criminal law’s items while the wide object contains the items and all the material influence judicial officers’ understanding on it. There is also an obvious distinction among criminal law’s applicable interpretation, legislative interpretation and judicial interpretation. As the three’s statue, the writer thinks that criminal law’s application interpretation should be on the nuclear position in the interpretation system, judicial interpretation being a supplementary measure and the legislative interpretation only being a exception. Functionary, applicable interpretation is an important instrument to overcome the limitation of criminal law, a sharp weapon to achieve the case justice, a modulator to adapt society, and also is a bridge and linkage to connect criminal legal item and case fact. Exceptional, the judicial officer must insist two ideas: having no "bad law" and strictly interpreting. Having no "bad law" neither insists the criminal law’s applicable interpretation being almighty, nor does it mean can get a result absolutely correspondent with justice in any case, it just demands judicial officer understand criminal law and select the meaning of item according to the accepted reasons, so as to avoid the appearance of "bad law" in the permission of interpretation. Criminal law’s extremely stern, necessity, state action in the criminal case and limitary function of legal principle decide the interpretation must insist the idea of strict interpretation. But the strict interpretation does not mean it only can be interpreted beneficial for the defendant, "strict" is compared with "free" in free interpretation. Above all the strict interpretation means reasonable and correct interpretation in the scope that criminal law text can accept.The third chapter: the principle of legality and limitation of criminal law’s applicable interpretation. In this chapter, the writer locates the principle of legality under the view of rule-of-law system, according to the development of its content, theoretically, the principle of legality being divided into formal one and substantive one, and dissertate the interpretation limitation they permit, at last bringing out the writer’s idea on the base of their merits and shortage.The writer thinks the formal principle of legality is the reflection that formal rule-by-law system to criminal law, which is an absolutization of legal principle’s concept and reflects the basic idea of conceptual jurisprudence, current legal positivism having close connection with it. The formal principle of legality standing on the point of individualism, views the confirmation as the law’s supreme value. Under the formal principle of legality, judicial officer must understand and interpret the criminal law according to the strict text meaning. Strict regulations represents systematic thinking model of doctrinism, though it has many merits, it also makes a opposition between rule and value, neglecting the achievement of specific case’s justice, meanwhile reducing the possibility of problem resolve. Because of the abstract concept’ wide use in the legislation, the function of criminal law as a behavior regulation was reduced. The substantive principle of legality is guided with substantive rule-of-law system and should be understand from the "law’s" initial value. It breakthroughs the formal limitation and endues a new content to "law" and "statutary" in the principle of legality. The substantive principle of legality takes substantive justice’s realization as a unique standard, and in order to realize it, judicial officer may not be restricted by criminal law text and not freely interpret. If the substantive principle of legality is thoroughly implemented, the text will completely vanish, finally falls into the lair of legal nihilism.In modern rule-of-law background, the writer thinks, the principle of legality should be a integration of form and substance, when judicial officer is interpreting criminal law, he must use judicial wisdom to find the balance between legal stabilization and change, conservative and creative, principle and practice, the whole and the partial. On the problem of the interpretation limitation, judicial officer must consider a double demand: law’s external form and internal value, so as to establish a possible text meaning as a theoretic mode of interpretation limitation guided by values. In value-instructing theoretic mode, judicial officer views the law as a system composed of understandable rules, but the meaning of the legal rules is controlled by them through the value attributed to the rules. As justice is law’s prime value, justice also should be the substantive limitation of interpretation, and so judicial officer must take the impartialness and rationality of the case result as the essential purpose. Nevertheless, in the course of achieving justice, judicial officer must not neglect the restriction of criminal law text to them, and the item’s possible meaning is formal limitation of interpretation. Within the limitation of possible meaning, demand to justice is decisive standard which decides criminal law item’s meaning selection. Glossary possible meaning is not an absolutely certain point, but a semantic area with certain flexibility, whose verge is determined by these factors: value idea of justice, demand of reason and factual substance, people’s usual language custom. When to choice the criminal law item’s glossary meaning, unitary possible meaning fitting for justice idea has the priority to the insular term’s meaning.Moreover, according to two extreme situations probably appeared in the interpretation, the writer brings out disposal methods. He also thinks judicial officer must recognize two appearances of analogical interpretation, what the interpretation should prohibit is not analogical methods as thinking method and fitting for thinking regulation, but analogical application to create items. Because in the systematic interpretation, natural interpretation and a part of extended interpretation and limited interpretation, judicial officer are consciously and unconsciously using analogy, which is not merely necessary, but also can not be prohibited. Herein the importance of justice in the interpretation, the writer gets a simple review to its history and points out: in the history, there was a tendency to make myth of the justice theory, and then made it being an objective eternal super-experience thing deviated from society, finally the judgment only reposing to a few elites’ discover. Only through the words hegemony can the authority of such kind of justice obtain and at last lead to autarchy, so he claims: justice is factually not mystic, it’s a social production existing in our society, essentially it being a value judgment accordant with the people’s universe cognation to "common sense, common reason, common situation", and its judger being not social elite, but being the masses. He further points out the authority of demonstration to justice can be gained by "common sense, common reason, common situation" the common cognized, and then uncover its mystery veil. Interpretation can not disobey the basic demand of "common sense, common reason, common situation", which is not only the modern democratic state’s necessary requirement, but also is necessary conclusion of present acknowledgement. Through "common sense, common reason, common situation" to unscramble justice, the best merit is emphasizing the masses--the subject who judge the justice, so that it benefits for interpretation to gain the public cognition.The fourth chapter: the methods of criminal law applicable interpretation. Firstly the writer takes an elaborate dissertation according to traditional classification on text meaning interpretation, systematic interpretation, historical interpretation and purpose interpretation, after that he discusses the other interpretation methods usually used in the practice such as extended interpretation, limited interpretation, natural interpretation, opposing interpretation and comparative interpretation, finally points out the relationship between each rank..Text meaning is the starting point of criminal law applicable interpreting and its interpretation is a basic method. Text meaning interpretation presents a typical linear thinking method of "trinity", which insisting such a value idea: the prime place of law’s confirmation and stability, legislation supreme and power division. If the meaning interpretation effects absolutely, the language will be required its absolute confirmation and enough expression, but contrarily, language expression always acts deficient, so as to determine the limitation of meaning interpretation. When meaning interpretation disinfects, judicial officer must appeal to other interpretation method and the possible meaning demarcate them. Systematic interpretation is such a method, it standing on the value position of legal order’s oneness and using the relativity between the law articles to interpret. Systematic interpretation exerts enough and effective function must have a non-contradiction, harmony, self-sufficient and satisfactory legal system. However, as systematic interpretation only recurs to law’s exterior formal system, and the deficiency of legislator’s ration deciding legal system dissatisfactory, there must exist limitation in the systematic interpretation. When it disinfects, judicial officer must recur to law’s interior value system, using purpose interpretation method to act. Historical interpretation is within the category of purpose interpretation from the point of wide meaning, which claims basic purpose of interpretation lying in researching legislator’s intention when he is legislating. If historical interpretation wants to exert function, it will be demanded that behind every criminal law article there is a unity legislative intention, and this intention is obtained and had been obtained through the historical literature can still be fit for the case of the time and should not present unjust disposal result. Apparently, that those conditions always can not be satisfied makes the historical interpretation plunge into jam and at last it has to rescue to the objective purpose interpretation. Purpose interpretation is a rational interpretation according to legal rule’s practical signification and the law’s own purpose, it pursuing an objective purpose that the law nowadays fits for reason. As an important method of casuistry, purpose interpretation stands on the theoretic hypothesis that legislator will reasonably legislate to claim distinguishing the law’s purpose from the aspects of reason and the substance. In case that purpose interpretation always need judicial officer breakthrough the legal form to pursue interior value, thus gives a stronger free interpreting power to judicial officer, as a result, how to prevent the interpreting power being abused is a main difficult problem that purpose interpretation confronts.In addition, about some other interpretation methods, the writer also dissertates them one by one. He thinks the extended interpretation and limited interpretation, in fact, are not an independent interpreting method, they using the other interpreting method such as systematic interpretation, historical interpretation and purpose interpretation to do, after that, consulting with the word’s current meaning to evaluate the interpreting result. When judicial officer goes on extended interpretation, there was two conditions must be satisfied: the one is the meaning’s extending must fit for the requirement of justice and "common sense, common reason, common situation"; the other one is the meaning’s extension can not transcend the possible meaning’s range of criminal law’ article. The base of limited interpretation is not the principle beneficial to defendant, but the requirement to justice principle. Meanwhile, nature interpretation, opposition interpretation and comparative interpretation have their own independent function and characters.In the end of this chapter, the writer, on the base of demonstrating the interpretation method’s function, analyses the argument that whether the positional rank exists between the interpretation methods and then concludes: though there exists confliction and contradiction between the interpretation methods, as a whole, there is a positional rank ranged as follows: meaning interpretation, systematic interpretation, historical interpretation, purpose interpretation. In the interpretation of criminal law application, in case of legal principle’s limited function, comparative interpretation is just other interpretation methods’ assistant measure, whose purpose is to strengthen the other methods’ reliability and does not independently determine the meaning of criminal law’s article. Besides, although the rank between the interpretation methods is a sum-up of judicial experience and present judicial operation’s convenience, it is not absolute. Each interpretation method having its merit and shortage, its adopting ultimately is determined by the requirement of realizing case justice. Exceptional, the writer further points out: if each interpretation method does not constrain to traditional meaning and take a extended understanding, here meaning interpretation’s meaning includes both general meaning and possible meaning, systematic interpretation’s system includes exterior formal system and interior value system, historical interpretation includes legislative original intension and also includes reasonable intension nowadays should have, whichever interpretation method is adopted, the same interpretation conclusion can be got, the contradiction between those methods can be eliminated, and then to transcend the argument of the methods’ range.The fifth chapter: the interpretation conclusion’s forming of criminal law application. In this chapter, the writer first discovers the thinking process of the conclusion from the ontological angle, and thinks it presents three different aspects: integrating subjective and objective, fact and rule’s returning, interaction between objectives. Furthermore, the writer encloses the thinking process’ characters that interpretation conclusion formed, says if the reasonable interpretation conclusion is promoted to be formed, besides that judicial officer need obey the requirement that the interpretation’s basic idea, its limitation, methods and the range between interpretation methods’ positional rank bring forward, from the angle of system construction and procedure perfecting, the emphasis should be lay on how to form enough interpretation suggestion and competitive election system, on moderately introducing judicial democracy, on to strengthen law demonstration and make interpretation reason to public. On the base of criticizing to subjective interpretation and objectivism, objective interpretation and subjectivism, the writer points out: neither is the formation of interpretation conclusion an absolute objectivity of value--irrespective, nor is it an absolute subjectivity that intuitionist insists, but a coexistence of the subjectivity and objectivity. Interpretation is subjective in case that judicial officer can not deviate his own pre-idea and pre-understanding when he interprets and meanwhile the pre-idea and pre-understanding are precondition and starting point which make interpretation can be proceeded. Whereas interpretation is objective, in that it’s always restricted by tradition, authority, community and case fact itself, it can not proceed freely. The forming of interpretation does not first confirm the fact and then interprets law, nor does it first give a judgment; the reason is just a immediate footnote and an additive process. On the one hand, guided by the article, judicial officer makes abstraction and makes type of living fact to legal fact, and then realizes the practice approaching to legal rule; on the other hand, according to the case fact’s concrete situation, judicial officer will specify the unapplied articles to judgment rule fitting for the requirement of the case by the way of interpreting, and then realizes the legal rules approaching to the case fact. Besides, the forming of interpretation conclusion also represent the subjects’ interaction, which contains two aspects, the one is the judicial officer as a reader and the legislator of criminal law text as a creator, through interaction to get their view’s integration and finally interpretation conclusion is gained; the other one is different interpreters’ interaction, through competition between their suggestions, judicial officer’s mistaken pre-idea is certified and correct pre-suggestion being elected out.In order to promote reasonable interpretation conclusion to be formed, a favorable dialog and discussing system between the interpreters must be established, so that different interpreting suggestions may become a cute competition and in the argument the reasonable one is adopted. Meanwhile, judicial democracy must be moderately introduced, by a reasonable way the masses participating in the judicial process. Moreover, on the base of positive investigation the writer points out: on the content of judicial document writing, there being a difference between to the interior and to outside, which reflects such a traditional judicial idea: the emphasis on authority and submission, neglecting communication and persuasion. However, in the background of modern rule-of-law system, judicial officer must make the interpretation conclusion to legal demonstration and put the reasons to the public, so as to strengthen the dialogue and communicating between judicial officer and the masses, and then form an exterior supervision to interpretation.In the part of conclusion, the writer gives a short generalization and sum-up to the ideas formed in this thesis.更多还原