【作者】 王吉霞；

【导师】 赖宇；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 刑法学， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 罚金刑是法院判处犯罪分子向国家缴纳一定数额的金钱的刑罚方法。二十世纪以来，罚金刑倍受西方国家重视，适用范围日益广泛。我国1979年刑法典规定罚金刑的条款不多，实践中适用较少。1997年刑法典重新修订后，罚金刑条款明显增加，司法实践也开始大量应用。但由于刑法典的规定过于简单，不免对罚金刑的适用和执行带来诸多问题。所以，充分认识和解决这些疑难问题，意义十分重大。本文共分五个部分，对有关罚金刑的五个方面的问题进行了研究。一、罚金刑的地位是决定罚金刑适用的关键问题。笔者从刑罚结构的历史类型入手，围绕罚金刑在不同的刑罚结构中所处地位的变化，指出当今罚金刑已经进入与自由刑并驾齐驱的时代。同时从我国刑法立法和实践两方面分析了目前我国罚金刑的绝对从属地位，阐明了将我国罚金刑上升为主刑的观点。为了避免因将罚金刑上升为主刑而限制其适用范围，建议刑法典规定对罚金刑可以附加适用。二、罚金刑的适用范围应当扩展。首先围绕刑法典的规定，分析了我国罚金刑适用范围及特点，虽然与1979年刑法典相比，新刑法典规定罚金刑的条款增多，适用的范围扩大，但并非所有贪利犯罪都可适用罚金刑，对大多数过失犯罪法律还禁止罚金刑的适用。因此笔者提出，对所有贪利犯罪都可以并处或单处罚金，对大多数过失犯罪和对故意犯罪的轻罪设置罚金刑的立法建议并论述了依据。最后，对我国特殊犯罪人中的未成年犯和累犯罚金刑的适用问题进行了探讨，从理论上对<WP=44>适用中容易产生的疑惑与争议予以解说和评断，并阐述了笔者的观点。三、罚金刑的运用形态与犯罪相对应，是罚金刑的具体适用方式，直接体现了罚金刑适用的广泛程度。通过对世界各国规定的罚金刑适用方式的说明及剖析我国刑法典规定的罚金刑适用方式的缺欠，笔者认为我国刑法典应当作如下修改：①对自然人可以引入单科制作为短期自由刑的替代刑罚，但应仅适用于轻罪和犯罪情节轻微的情况；②减少必并科罚金数量，增加得并科罚金数量，避免造成罪责刑不适应和重刑之虞；③增加选科罚金的数量，对具有犯罪行为危害性小、有罚金刑适罚性的犯罪都可以考虑适用罚金刑；④分解某些罪名的复合罚金制为单科制和并科制，使主刑的刑度和罚金的数额设置上更科学。另外笔者赞成我国设立易科罚金制，以补救短期自由刑的弊端。四、罚金数额的裁量是罚金刑裁量的重要内容。影响罚金数额的裁量因素有两个，一是犯罪情节，二是被告人的支付能力。虽然世界各国刑法典对这一问题的认识有着不同情况，但并非都是科学合理的，所以我国刑法典选择犯罪情节作为决定罚金数额的唯一因素是片面的。判处罚金不参酌犯罪分子的经济状况，很可能导致罚金刑的空判，有损法律的尊严。笔者认为，在具体裁量罚金数额时，除应依照法律规定考虑犯罪情节外，还应参酌犯罪人的经济状况，这种做法符合世界立法趋势。另外，罚金的种类与罚金数额的裁量原则密不可分。我国裁量罚金数额的原则是以无限额罚金制为主，兼采取限额罚金制和参照罚金制，不十分科学。无限额罚金制因存在违背罪行法定之虞和容易造成司法擅断，已被世界绝大多数国家所抛<WP=45>弃，我国亦应弃之。我国未规定日额制，这样削弱了罚金刑对富人的惩罚功效，所以应当引入，以克服因贫富差异造成的刑罚效果平等化、平均化的问题。五、罚金刑的执行是罚金刑得以实现其功能的必要手段，但我国刑法典对罚金刑的执行规定得不尽完善，执行中常会遇到一些问题。笔者分析了产生罚金刑执行难的具体原因，认为既要正确理解和适用罚金刑执行的有关法律规定，又要完善罚金刑执行制度，才能很好地解决罚金刑执行难以及审判和执行脱节问题。所以对我国刑法规定的法定执行方式如何理解以及运用中应当注意的问题，笔者阐述了自己的观点。针对法院内部执行罚金刑机构不统一、缺乏对未执行罚金刑的犯罪人的跟踪和检察院对罚金刑的执行监督不力等问题，笔者提出了由法院的执行庭承担执行罚金刑职能并建立跟踪问效制度以及加强检察院对罚金刑的执行监督等对策，立法上应当增加延期缴纳方式，引入罚金刑的易科执行方式。在这些措施的保证下，罚金刑执行难的问题会得到缓解。更多还原

【Abstract】 Fine penalty is a punishment method that condemn offenders to pay a sum of money for state as a forfeit for an offense. Since the 20th century, fine penalty was given a great concern in western countries and gradually applied in a wide range. Only a few Provisions on fine penalty were made available in penal code of 1979 in China, which have been rarely applied in practice. After the revision of Penal Code in 1979, more items on fine penalty were added and widely performed in justice cases. However, there are many inevitable problems with fine penalty application and performance because provisions prescribed in penal code excessively simple. So it is important to well recognize these problems and to settle them down. The main problems with fine penalty in judicial practice were presented and discussion on the way out were made with this research.Status of fine penalty is the key problem in determining its applicable range. Based on the historical types of penalty structure and status variation of fine penalty in different punishment structure, we suggested that fine penalty had already stepped into the times running neck and neck with free-punishment. At the same time, we analyzed the absolute dependent status of fine penalty in two aspects: legislation and practice of criminal law in our country, accordingly set forth the viewpoint of upgrading fine penalty to principal penalty. To avoid limiting the applicable range after upgraded, we suggested that fine penalty could be applied as additional punishment.Application range of fine penalty should be expanded. First, analyzed the application range and characters of fine penalty. Compared with penal code 1979, the new criminal law has more provisions on fine penalty and the applicable range expanded, but not all mammonist offenders can be simultaneously or separately mulcted and law still inhibits fine penalty applied to most of crime and transgression. According this we put forward that it is reasonable to simultaneously or separately sentence all mammonist offenders fine penalty, and gave us legislating suggests on fine penalty to crime and transgression, mesdemeanours of crime and malice and also explained the reasons. Finally, we discussed issues of applying fine penalty to special offenders: minor criminals and jailbirds, and explained the doubts and <WP=47>controversy that may appear in practice in theory and gave the author’ points.Application formats of fine penalty corresponding to criminality is the specific quomodo of fine penalty, and directly reflects the extensiveness in practice. Through illustrating fine penalty applying formats prescribed all over the world and analyzing disadvantages of fine penalty application formats existed in our penal code, I believed that our penal code should be amended as follows: ① To natural person , but should apply to mesdemeanours and minor criminality ;②cut down penal sun of combining necessarily section and increase that of having to combining section, and avoid leading to maladjustment and consensus of serious punishment; ③increase penal sum of choosing-section and apply fine penalty to those crimes with minor perniciousness and those suitable for applying fine punishment; ④break down multiple fine system of some accusal into single section system and combining section system, and consequently judge principal penalty and set up penal sum scientifically.Judging the amount of penal sum is important part of fine penalty application. There are two factors affecting the judgement mentioned-above: one is criminal scenario and another is payment capability of defendant. Various opinions on this problem existed in penal code all over the world, but not all of them are scientific and reasonable. So the fact that penal code of our national selected criminal scenario as the exclusive factor in determining penal sum may be ex parte. If not considered the criminals economic circs, the adjudicate may be invalid and harmful to reverence of laws. In my mind, courts should not only think over the criminal scenarios prescr更多还原