【作者】 李佳欣；

【导师】 徐岱；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 刑法学， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 刑法司法解释，作为法定有权司法机关在刑事审判工作中对刑法应用问题所作的具有普遍司法效力的阐明，涵于刑法解释之中，而独立于立法解释之外。本文谨以刑法司法解释的理论性探讨为视角，深入剖析当今刑法司法解释存在争议的诸多问题，进行逐一论述。论文第一部分首先界定了刑法司法解释的概念。刑法司法解释，指法定有权司法机关在刑事审判工作中对刑法应用问题所作的具有普遍司法效力的阐明。它具有法定性、限制性、普遍性、抽象性的特征。刑法司法解释的表现形式，最高人民法院采取解释、规定、批复；而最高人民检察院则采取解释、规定、意见、通知、批复。刑法司法解释形式的差异性，造成了在司法实践中的难以调和。论文第二部分着重探讨了刑法司法解释的主体。我国刑法司法解释的主体现状体现在非司法解释主体范围膨胀，即非解释主体也参与对现行刑法的司法解释，削弱主体权威，这种多元化的体制明显使现今的司法解释“二元化”体制受到冲击。而近年来，最高人民检察院作为刑法司法解释的主体亦颇受争议。笔者认为应废除其主体地位，理由有二：其一，两院同时行使司法解释权，破坏了司法统一原则；其二，两院同时行使司法解释权，降低了司法效益。这表现为二解释机关各自为政，对同一问题进行重复解释等等。司法解释以两个司法机关的名义做出，这就从形式上混淆了司法权与检察权的区别。在我国，主体问题非常复杂，笔者认为，法官不应成为刑法司法解释的主体，因为其一，在我国，法官适用法律的活动并未得到制度上的确定，即这种法律性的阐明并不是法律解释权。其二，中国行使司法权表现为特有的集体职权主义特色，且实行法院独立审判。因此，中国刑法司法解释<WP=58>体制主体不是法官而是最高司法机关。但法官正确而适当地运用法律，是实现刑法司法正义的重要体现。论文第三部分深入剖析了刑法司法解释之价值取向。首先，刑法司法解释在价值选择上，采用一种主观见之于客观的方法论去定位。主观主义与客观主义的价值旨趣不是相斥，而是相合，刑法司法解释的目标，是在尊重刑法条文客观性的基础上，最大化地再现刑法所要体现的目的与内容。只有解释者以立法者的角度，使法律既把一种理性的、经验的存在内涵显形于外，又将立法者之价值取向蕴含其中，从中达致法律所追求的终极正义。其次，在价值趋向上，采取目的论解释。刑法司法解释所要达到的真实目的，是法律解释所要追求的正义。它应是一种整体性的阐释，是根据整体所体现的法律目的或意图而进行的解释。这样，法律解释可以一方面可克服法律因其本身的局限性而产生的不确定和避免任意解释的主观性；另一方面，它又可吸纳社会中的变化因素，实现法律目的与特定的社会目的的一致。这即是刑法司法解释追求的目的趋向——它的最终追求，即为了最大化地衡平与完善社会正义与个人正义的需要。论文第四部分论述了刑法司法解释的原则旨趣——罪刑法定原则。它在指导刑法司法解释活动中主要体现在两方面：其一，抑制刑法司法解释的“立法化”现象。罪刑法定原则是对司法权的限制，顺理成章地，它也是对刑法司法解释权的限制。罪刑法定原则的基本内涵是限制权力（司法权）和保障（公民个人）权利。这就要求刑法司法解释的解释内容能为刑法文本含义所涵括，反对司法介入立法领域，否定司法“立法化”现象。其二，罪刑法定原则下的扩大解释适用。罪刑法定原则的一个重要功能，即要使刑法所要保护的法益（目的）得到法定化的实现。通过刑法文本的制定，将现实社会中立法者的真意成文化地体现出来。而有时成文法文义<WP=59>的不能自足，使其造成实现法律之内的正义的缺憾。为了确保公正性的实现，扩大解释在相对罪刑法定原则的前提下便有存在的正当性。即在这种立法至上和分权原则基础上产生的扩大解释方法，是在刑法之文义不能正确处理，或不能公平地处理案件而产生的，扩大解释符合罪刑法定原则的基本要求与意蕴，解释者在扩大解释中并没有真正立法。论文第五部分主要论述了三种主要的刑法司法解释方法：文义解释方法，扩大解释方法，系统解释方法。其中区分了扩大解释与类推解释的界限：扩大解释是将法律语言可能包括的意思范围作出处罚，因此被允许，而所谓类推解释，是指对于法律没有明文规定的行为适用类似的法律条文予以处罚。因此类推解释不是解释，而是创造法律；扩大解释所解释两个事项的关系是一定的种属关系，而类推解释中所解释两个事项关系是同级并列的，即法条所规定的内容，和该法条的适用上成为问题的，该法条中没有包含的事实之间，因为具有类推或相同之处，所以将有关前者的法条也适用于后者。最后，在论文的第六部分，笔者在总结以上论证内容的基础上，试图建构一种一元一级刑法司法解释模式：由最高人民法院独立行使刑法司法解释权的模式。即最高人民法院独立行使刑法司法解释权，且是行使刑法司法解释权的唯一主体，以最高人民法院名义做出的刑法司法解释包括解释、规定、批复，对各级人民法院和各级人民检察院都具有普遍的拘束力，在法律正当程序内执行和遵守。其他任何司法机关和行政机关都不得以任何名义制更多还原

【Abstract】 The judicial interpretation of criminal law, as entitled judicial organization illustrates generally for the concrete application of criminal law in criminal adjudication, is included by interpretation of criminal law, but independents excepting legislative interpretation. This article has analyzed many questions that nowadays criminal law has the problems of dispute by judicial explanation while being deep, and expounds it separately.The first part defines the conception of the judicial interpretation of criminal law. The judicial interpretation of criminal law, means that entitled judicial organization illustrates generally for the concrete application of criminal law in criminal adjudication. The character is statutory, restrictive, catholicity, abstractive. The form of the judicial interpretation of criminal law includes interpretation, rule, official written reply by the Supreme People’s Count, and that includes interpretation, rule, opinion, inform, and official written reply by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate. So we can say: The difference quality in the form has caused the confusion for judicial practice..The second part probes into emphatically the subject of the judicial interpretation of criminal law. The current situation for the subject of the judicial interpretation of criminal law in China incarnates non-subject of the judicial interpretation of criminal law’s scope expanding. It means that non-subject also participated in the judicial interpretation for criminal law, weakened the authority of the subject of interpretation. The pluralistic system makes the judicial interpretation dualistic system of now impact obviously. So, author considers that we should abolish the Supreme People’s Procuratorate subject status. First, it destroyed the principle for unify the administration of justice; second, it has reduced the judicial benefit. As the judicial interpretation <WP=61>of criminal law is made by two judicial organization, it is obscured the difference between judicial power and prosecutorial power.The subject question is very complicated. Author thinks that the judge couldn’t be the subject of judicial interpretation of criminal law. First, judge’s activity of the suitable law has not gotten the affirmation on the system. it means this activity isn’t the power of judicial interpretation. Second, the judicial power in China shows as the peculiar exofficio doctrine characteristic. So, the subject of the judicial interpretation of criminal law system in China is not judge but the supreme judicial organization.The three part is deeply discusses the value orientation of the judicial interpretation of criminal law. First, for the value choosing, the judicial interpretation of criminal law uses methodology of subjective and objective integration, because the value purport of subjectivism and objectivism is not repulsed, but syncretized. The judicial interpretation of criminal law’ goal is to reproduce purpose and content that criminal law should embody maximizing on the basis of respecting the clause objectivity of criminal law. The interpretator should show the existence of the reason and experience of the law from the angle of the person who legislates, and reaches the justice that law pursues.Second, we should use the teleological Interpretation on the value tendency of the judicial interpretation of criminal law. The true tendency that the judicial interpretation of criminal law want pursues is justice. It should be the holistic explanation. So, on the one hand, interpretation of law could overcome the uncertainty because of the law’s own limitation, and prevent the arbitrary interpretation’s subjectivity; On the other hand, it could absorb the change factor in the society, realize that the legal purpose and specific social purpose. That is the teleological tendency for the judicial interpretation of <WP=62>criminal law pursuing——The pursuing finally of it is balanced and perfect the need of social justice and personal justice in order to maximize.The forth part discusses更多还原