【作者】 谭兆强；

【导师】 赵国强；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 刑法学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 刑事人类学派的代表人物加罗法洛从犯罪学角度提出，要将刑法打击的重点集中在道德异常的真正的犯罪人，即自然犯上面，进而根据是否具有道德异常提出了自然犯、法定犯的概念。“刑法学是最精确的法学。……含糊的刑法无异于否定罪刑法定原则以及否定刑法存在的价值。”1但我国刑法学界对法定犯的理解含糊不清，刑法理论通说认为法定犯等同于行政犯，曲解法定犯与行政犯的关系。事实上，行政犯源于违警罪，在行政犯理论的发源地德国已全部实行非犯罪化，这反映了我国刑法理论研究的严重不足，需要对法定犯理论正本清源。随着社会经济的发展，法定犯增生已是不争的事实，有学者因此提出我们已进入法定犯时代。由于法定犯具有易变性，从刑法立法史来看，犯罪化和非犯罪化都是从法定犯开始的；又由于法定犯具有违反行政法律规范与刑法分则规范的双重违法性，易造成规定法定犯的前置性行政法律规范与刑法分则规范对其构成要件和构成要件要素规定的不一致，从而引发法律适用问题；正是由于法定犯的出现和增生，违法性意识在犯罪论体系中经历了一个从不要到必要的演进过程，经历了从故意的要素到责任的要素的纷争过程。这说明，研究法定犯理论与实践对于完善我国刑法理论、指导刑法立法和刑事司法都具有十分重要的意义。本文包括导言、正文和结语。导言对法定犯增生引发的问题意识与研究意义作了阐述，对法定犯问题在我国的研究现状与不足作了分析，对本文的研究视角与方法、创新与不足作了介绍。正文共分为五章。第一章——法定犯基础理论。本章是对法定犯基础理论的总体介绍与论述，共分为四节。第一节、第二节介绍了法定犯的产生渊源及法定犯与自然犯的相关内容。法定犯产生的历史渊源是古罗马法律禁止的“恶”，英美法系国家法规禁止的罪，产生背景是刑事人类学派对刑事古典学派刑法理论的批判，刑事人类学派的代表人物加罗法洛针对刑事古典学派的犯罪是对法律的禁止的刑法理论难以有效应对累犯、惯犯与少年犯上升等问题，从犯罪学角度，创造性地提出了自然犯和法定犯的概念。自然犯是触犯怜悯和正直这两种基本利他情感的犯罪，法定犯是法律规定予以禁止的行为，两者划分界限是是否道德异常。由于自然犯与法定犯区分具有相对性，因此两者之间存在互相转化、互相交叉、互相包容的关系。第三节阐述了法定犯概念与特征。针对学者对法定犯的概念之争，笔者提出侵害或威胁法益但没有违反伦理道德的犯罪是法定犯，但由于法定犯的发展，现代意义上的法定犯与自然犯的区分标准是是否具有双重违法性与较弱反伦理性。这样，区分标准明确。本节还全面阐述了法定犯具有双重违法性、较大易变性、较强目的性、较弱反伦理性、较强专业性、较高隐蔽性的特征。第四节阐述了法定犯的刑法价值。关于法定犯刑法价值，即法定犯与自然犯区分的意义，学者之间存在“必要说”和“不必要说”的争论。笔者分析提出，由于法定犯的出现，在刑法理论上推动了严格责任、法人犯罪、违法性意识的产生、发展和完善；在刑事立法上，从立法单轨制转化到双轨制，实现了刑法立法的稳定性和社会适应性，并且犯罪化、非犯罪化都是从法定犯开始，推动了刑法的科学进化，刑法立法大量增设法定犯，刑法立法从自然犯为主导转变到法定犯为主导；在刑事司法上，自然犯、法定犯在我国犯罪所占比例出现此消彼长的变化，这些都一定程度上反映了研究法定犯的刑法价值。第二章——法定犯与行政犯。本章是全文的重点，共分为四节。第一节全面阐述了法定犯与行政犯的关系，提出要走出法定犯与行政犯等同说的误区。虽然学界对法定犯与行政犯的关系存在“等同说”与“区别说”之争，但“等同说”是我国刑法理论的通说。通过对行政犯理论与立法的历史研究和比较研究，笔者分析出这是对法定犯与行政犯关系的曲解。“行政犯”概念源自于大陆法系国家的“违警罪”，在“行政犯”发源地的德国在20世纪中叶因刑事政策原因而从《刑法典》中分离出来，从而形成了“行政犯”和“刑事犯”的对应概念，并促成了行政刑法的产生和发展。综观德国、日本、中国台湾、中国澳门的行政犯理论与立法，可归纳出行政犯有三种不同内涵，包括：（1）属于行政违法性质的行政不法行为，这主要体现在德国的违反秩序行为；（2）既有“刑事违法”性质的刑事不法行为，又有“行政违法”性质的行政不法行为，这主要体现在中国澳门法律中的“轻微违反”；（3）属于刑事违法性质的行政犯罪行为，这主要是日本刑法学者、中国台湾部分学者的观点。这说明行政犯与无异议的属于刑事违法性质的法定犯不能等同。我国刑法理论之所以将法定犯与行政犯等同，一方面，是因为在我国法律体系中，刑事违法和行政违法之间不存在大陆法系国家“行政刑法”中处于刑事违法和行政违法之间的“行政犯”问题，因此，以违反行政管理法律为由，将法定犯与行政犯等同；另一方面，是深受日本刑法理论的影响，但即使在日本，对行政犯的内涵也有分歧，法定犯与行政犯等同也只是其中一种观点。第二节全面辨析了法定犯与行政犯差异。经比较研究和历史考察可辨知，法定犯与行政犯在历史渊源、法律渊源、行为性质、内涵外延、刑法总则的指导作用等方面均存在差异。第三节全面辨析了法定犯与行政犯的共性以及两者在程序、证据、立法的衔接问题。法定犯与行政犯之间既有差异，又有共性（均侵害法益、违反行政管理法律和均受“法无明文规定不得罚”原则的支配），两者的关系要求在法律制度上将此两种违法行为及其责任机制有机地衔接起来。通过实证研究可知，近年来，各种恶性事件层出不穷，究其原因，是对各种专业性较强的法定犯罪打击不力，没有实现有罪必罚。这其中深层次的原因是没有解决法定犯与行政犯的衔接问题。由于法定犯首先具有行政违法性，法定犯的查处以行政执法机关行政执法为前提，以行政执法机关移送、刑事司法机关受理涉嫌犯罪的案件为条件。因此，本文所指的法定犯与行政犯的衔接则是指行政执法与刑事司法相衔接。而要真正实现行政执法与刑事司法的顺畅衔接,就必须健全衔接机制，这包括程序、证据和立法三方面的衔接。程序的衔接主要体现在涉嫌犯罪案件的移送、罪与非罪的界定。证据的衔接主要体现在行政执法证据与刑事司法证据的转化方式，具体包括：（1）对于客观性较强的实物证据，只要司法工作人员形式审查即可；（2）对于主观性较强的言词证据（但鉴定结论除外），则要经过司法工作人员重新收集。立法的衔接主要体现在行政处罚与刑事处罚标准相互衔接。第四节全面分析提出了法定犯贯彻立法谦抑的具体意见。德国著名学者耶林指出：“刑罚如两刃之剑，用之不得其当，则国家与个人两受其害”。刑事立法谦抑正是源于刑罚两刃性的应对。刑事立法谦抑包括罪之谦抑和刑之谦抑。对照刑事立法谦抑原则，笔者分析了我国在犯罪化和刑罚结构方面都有值得检讨之处。在犯罪化方面，只有单向度的“犯罪化”、没有适时“非犯罪化”，导致刑法肥大症初现；增设新罪欠谨慎、没有考虑与现有罪名的包容或冲突问题；刑法和司法解释相关规定过于严厉，没有考虑与民事、行政法律衔接问题。在刑罚结构方面，死刑罪名仍然偏多；自由刑与罚金刑适用比例不协调，非监禁刑适用比例不高；附加刑中剥夺政治权利的范围太广。为此，笔者提出，对于法定犯的立法，应坚持立法谦抑原则，坚持刑法适度干预、限定处罚范围，确立轻轻重重原则、构建合理刑罚结构，实现对法定犯的有效控制及促进社会经济发展的统一。第三章——法定犯与罪状。本章共分为四节。第一节至第三节从司法实践角度阐述不同罪状法定犯的法律适用问题。由于法定犯具有双重违法性，由此易造成前置性行政法律规范与刑法分则规范对法定犯的构成要件和构成要件要素规定的不一致，从而引发法律适用问题。根据罪状的不同，法定犯刑法分则规范可以分为两大类型：规定空白罪状的空白刑法和规定叙明罪状的完全刑法。据此，法定犯前置性行政法律规范与依附的刑法分则规范，依罪状不同可以区分两种关系，即前置性行政法律规范对空白刑法的补充关系和对完全刑法的依附关系。前置性行政法律规范变动后，补充空白刑法的前置性行政法律规范应适用从旧兼从轻原则；依附完全刑法的前置性行政法律规范应适用刑法解释规则，对依附非参见罪状和参见罪状完全刑法的前置性行政法律规范要分别适用刑法的主观性解释、客观性解释规则。第四节通过对两大法系法定犯的立法比较研究，提出完善我国法定犯的立法建议。纵观大陆法系和英美法系主要国家、地区立法例，对法定犯均采取双轨制，以调和恒定性的自然犯和易变性的法定犯的矛盾，实现刑法立法的稳定性和社会适应性；并且设立过失危险犯或实行严格责任，以应对打击危害公共安全犯罪、危害公共卫生犯罪的需要，实现刑法对超个人法益的公共安全的保护。针对我国法定犯立法单轨制的弊端，提出有必要采取法定犯立法双轨制；并且法定犯过失犯罪要从“以实害结果为中心”向“以注意义务为中心”转化，刑法总则增设过失危险犯的规定，保持刑法总则与分则的统一协调。第四章——法定犯与违法性意识。本章共分为三节。第一节通过对违法性意识的历史研究，全面介绍了违法性意识的发展、演变。违法性意识一般是从其反面禁止错误加以研究，经历了“不知法律不免罪、不知法律不免罪原则的例外、区分禁止错误与构成要件错误、禁止错误纳入故意之中、禁止错误作为责任要素”的发展、演变过程。从立法、司法来看，1810年《法国刑法典》规定了“不知法律不免罪”原则，美国1957年蓝波特案体现了不知法律不免罪原则的例外。1871年《德国刑法典》只规定了构成要件错误，1952年德意志联邦法院大刑事判决委员会1952年3月18日的判决承认了违法性意识作为责任要素。1975年《德意志联邦刑法典》增加了禁止错误条款，区分了禁止错误与构成要件错误，在禁止错误中，区分了不可回避的禁止错误和可以回避的禁止错误。第二节全面阐述了故意与违法性意识的关系，提出要走出故意的误区。在故意与违法性意识关系的学说中，历来有“排除说”、“必要说”、“独立说”，我国刑法以“必要说”来处理违法性意识与故意的关系，实为长期以来刑法理论之一大误区。因此，笔者提出要走出故意的误区，借鉴大陆法系刑法理论，将违法性意识作为一种独立的主观责任要素，故意不包括违法性意识，只是对行为事实的认识。第三节全面辨析了法定犯故意与违法性意识的关系。法定犯故意与违法性意识关系上，历来有“违法性意识不要说”和“违法性意识必要说”之争，必要说中又区分为“故意说”和“责任说”。笔者赞同“责任说”，即法定犯故意，不包括违法性意识，违法性意识只是责任的要素，但责任说要区分两种情况，有正当理由的（不可回避的禁止错误），可以阻却罪过不予处罚，无正当理由的（可以回避的禁止错误），不可阻却罪过但可减轻处罚。此外，本节还研究辨析了法定犯违法性意识与违法性过失的关系以及法定犯禁止错误可避免性的判断标准。第五章——法定犯与犯罪形态。本章共分为三节。第一节阐述法定犯与故意犯罪停止形态的关系。故意犯罪停止形态包括犯罪既遂、犯罪预备、犯罪未遂和犯罪中止。笔者提出，法定犯与故意犯罪停止形态关系是，除法定犯既遂可罚性外，根据危险递增理论，法定犯预备与中止行为的原则不可罚性和未遂行为的选择可罚性。第二节阐述法定犯与共同犯罪形态的关系。首先，本节阐述了法定犯与共同犯罪人的关系。大陆法系刑法将共同犯罪人分为正犯与（狭义的）共犯，如何区分，刑法理论上存在主观理论、客观理论和行为支配理论之争。笔者分析了赞同行为支配理论的理由：无论是客观理论还是主观理论，均不能恰当地区分正犯和共犯，而行为支配理论综合了客观理论和主观理论，坚持了主客观相统一的原则。作为狭义的共犯的理论，在共犯与正犯的关系上，存在共犯从属性说与共犯独立性说的对立。由于笔者认可正犯行为支配理论，那么与之相对应的只能是共犯从属性理论，而且我国刑法采取的也是共犯从属性理论。法定犯共同正犯的认定上，同自然犯不同的是，在主体上包括法人犯罪（单位犯罪）。在法定犯狭义共犯的认定上，同样需要坚持共犯从属性说。其次，本节阐述了法定犯与共同犯罪构成的关系。共同犯罪应否以符合同一个犯罪构成为前提？刑法理论对此存在犯罪共同说与行为共同说的对立。笔者分析了赞同部分犯罪共同说的理由：因为该说符合我国刑法规定和主客观相一致的原则，并且可以比较合理地认定现实中的共犯现象。根据该说，对于法定犯共同犯罪构成的认定，只要二人以上就部分犯罪具有共同的行为与共同的故意（具有重合性质），便成立共同犯罪；在成立共同犯罪的前提下，又存在分别定罪的可能性。第三节阐述法定犯与罪数形态的关系。虽然我国刑法理论对一罪有各种不同分类，但我国刑法中真正属于罪数形态研究对象的只有牵连犯、法条竞合犯和想象竞合犯三种。由于实质竞合是实质的数罪，主要是研究数罪并罚的问题，因而不属于本节研究对象。1据此，本节以牵连犯、想象竞合犯和法条竞合犯三种罪数形态为研究对象，并分析法定犯在上述罪数形态中的认定与处罚。首先，本节阐述对牵连犯应适用从一重重处断原则。法定犯特点是专业性强，通常行为人要借助于一定的方法，而这些方法行为如果刑法将其独立地规定为犯罪时，使用这些方法，则可能成立牵连犯。对于法定犯中牵连犯，同样适用从一重重处断原则。其次，本节阐述了对想象竞合犯应适用从一重处断原则，这一原则对法定犯中想象竞合犯同样适用，而且我国刑法和司法解释也作出了明确规定。再次，本节阐述了法条竞合犯所包含的法条之间的特殊关系，包括特别关系、补充关系、吸收关系；论述了法定犯中法条竞合犯的法律适用原则，包括：（1）特别关系法条竞合犯适用特别法优于普通法为主、重法优于轻法为辅的原则，（2）补充关系法条竞合犯适用重法优于轻法的原则，（3）吸收关系法条竞合犯适用吸收法优于被吸收法的原则。更多还原

【Abstract】 The criminal human representative figures of the school of Garofalo fromcriminology angle of criminal law, will focus on moral abnormality in the realperpetrator, namely natural crime, and then according to whether having moralabnormal presents natural crime、statutory crime.“The science of criminal law is the most accurate law....... Vague criminal lawis tantamount to deny the principle of prescribed punishment and negative criminallaw value.” But in our country criminal law educational world about statutory crimeunderstanding is ambiguous, the theory of criminal law is that the statutory crimeequivalent administrative offense, misinterpretation of statutory crime andadministrative offense relationship. In fact, the administrative offense is frompolice offense, the birthplace of Germany has the full implementation ofdecriminalization, which reflects our country criminal law theory research seriouslyinsufficient,need to make the theory of statutory crime clear from the bottom. Withthe development of society and economy, the statutory crime proliferation is anindisputable fact, some scholars have put forward we have entered the era ofstatutory crime. The statutory crime has volatility, so the criminalization anddecriminalization are from the statutory crime beginning from the history of criminallegislation,; because the statutory crime is the violation of administrative law andcriminal law norm dual illegality, easy to cause the statutory crime prepositiveadministrative law and criminal law norms of its constituents and the elementsspecified is inconsistent, which caused legal problems; it is due to the statutory crimeemergence and proliferation, illegal consciousness in the theory of crime has experienced the necessary evolution process and the dispute from the element ofintent to responsibility. So the research of statutory crime theory and practice isimportant to perfect our country’s criminal theory、criminal legislation and criminaljustice.This paper consists of introduction, text and conclusion. The introductiondescribed that the statutory crime proliferation caused the problem consciousness、research significance and research present situation in our country, introduced theresearch perspective and methods, innovation and insufficiency. There are fivechapters.The first chapter: the statutory crime theory. This chapter is the basic theory ofstatutory crime, is divided into four sections. The first section and the second sectionintroduce the origin of statutory crime and the relation between statutory crime andnatural crime. The statutory crime’s historical origin is the prohibited “evil” inancient Rome law, the prohibited crime in the countries of Anglo-American law, thebackground is human school’s criticism against the criminal law theory of criminalclassical school, Garofalo, the representative figures of the human school creativelyput forward the concept of natural crime and statutory crime from the criminologyangle, because criminal classical school theory that crime is against the lawprohibited cannot effectively cope with recidivism, recidivism and juvenile offendersrising. Natural crime violated the mercy and integrity of the two basic altruisticemotional crime, statutory crime violated the prohibited acts, the two boundaries iswhether moral abnormality. As a result of natural crime and statutory crimedistinction is relative, therefore exist between the two mutual transformation, crosseach other, mutually inclusive relations. The third section describes the concept andcharacteristics of statutory crime. According to scholars concept of statutory crimeconcept, the author puts forward which harmed or threatened legal interest but noviolation of ethics is statutory crime, but as a result of the development of statutorycrime, the modern sense of the statutory crime and natural crime distinguishingstandard is whether dual illegality and the weaker anti ethics. This section alsoelaborates the statutory crime has dual illegality, greater volatility, strong purpose,weak anti ethics, professional, high concealment. The fourth section describes thestatutory crime criminal law value. On the statutory crime criminal law value,meaning distinguish value between statutory crime and natural crime, scholars have dispute. The author proposed, because of statutory crime appearing, promote strictliability, corporate crime, illegal consciousness of the generation, development andperfect in the theory of criminal law; in criminal legislation, from the legislation oftransformation to a dual-track system, realize the criminal legislation socialadaptability and stability, criminalization, decriminalization are from the statutorycrime, promoted the scientific evolution of criminal legislation, many additionalstatutory crime created, criminal legislation’s dominant from natural crime led tothe statutory crime; in criminal justice, natural crime, statutory crime in ourproportion reciprocal changes appear, these are reflected to a certain extent the studyvalue of statutory crime.The second chapter: the statutory crime and administrative offense. This is thekey chapter of this dissertation, is divided into four sections. The first sectionlelaborated the relation between statutory crime and administrative offense, putforward to walk out of equal error between statutory crime and administrativeoffense. Although the academic circle of legal crime and administrative offenserelationship exists between “the same” and “different” contend for, but “equal” is theauthority of Chinese criminal law theory. Based on the theory and legislation ofadministrative crime history research and comparative research, the author analyzesthat this is the distortion of legal crime and administrative offense.“Administrativeoffense” concepts derived from the mainland legal system country “contravention”,in the “administrative offense” birthplace of Germany in the middle of the twentiethCentury because of criminal policy reasons from “penal code” separated, therebyforming the “administrative crime” and “criminal” of the corresponding concepts,and contributed to the administrative criminal law production and development of. InGermany, Japan, China Taiwan, China Macao administrative crime theory andlegislation, can be summed up the administration of three different connotations,including:(1) belonging to the administrative illegal nature of administrative illegalbehavior, which is mainly reflected in the German violation behavior;(2)existingcriminal law the nature of the criminal behavior, and the administrative law nature ofthe administrative illegal behavior, which is mainly embodied in the Chinese law ofMacao" in a minor breach;(3) the nature of the administrative criminal law crime,this is mainly the Japanese criminal law scholars, China Taiwan scholars. Theadministrative crime and no objection belongs to the criminal nature of the statutory offender is not equal. The theory of criminal law in China is the statutory crime andadministrative crime equivalent, on one hand, because in our law system, criminallaw and administrative law does not exist between the continental law systemcountries" criminal law" in the criminal law and administrative law between "administrative offense" problem, therefore, in breach of administrative legal grounds,the statutory crime and administrative crime equivalent; on the other hand, is by theJapanese criminal law theory’s influence, but even in Japan, on the connotation ofadministrative crime and there are also differences, statutory crime andadministrative offense with only one view. Section second of the overall legal crimeand administrative crime difference. Through comparative research and historicalinvestigation of discernible knowledge, statutory crime and administrative crime inhistory, the legal origin, nature, connotation and extension, the general rules of thecriminal law the guidance function are different. Comprehensive analysis of sectionthird statutory crime and administrative crime commonness as well as both inprocedure, evidence, legislation articulation problems. The statutory crime andadministrative crime between which there are differences, and the common (bothlegal interest infringement, violation of administrative law and are subject to the nolaw expressly prohibiting the penalty principle’s control), the relationship betweenthe two requirements in the legal system, the two kinds of illegal behavior and itsmechanism of organic ground joins rise. Through the empirical study shows, inrecent years, all kinds of malignant events emerge in an endless stream, investigateits reason, is on a variety of professional legal crime attack strength, not realizing theguilty must be punished. The deep reason is no solution to the legal crime andadministrative crime articulation problems. The statutory crime begins withadministrative illegality, statutory crime investigation in administrative lawenforcement of administrative enforcement of law as the premise, withadministrative law-enforcement organs, criminal justice authorities accepted thesuspected criminal cases for the condition. Therefore, this paper refers to the legalcrime and administrative crime articulation refers to the linkage betweenadministrative enforcement and criminal justice. To truly realize the administrativelaw enforcement and criminal justice smooth engagement, we should improve thecoordination mechanism, which includes procedure, evidence and legislation fromthree aspects of the interface. Program interface is mainly reflected in the transfer thesuspected criminal case, the definition of crime and non-crime. Evidence of convergence is mainly reflected in the administrative law enforcement evidence andcriminal judicial evidence transformation method, including:(1) physical evidencefor strong objectivity, as long as the judicial staff review form to;(2) the subjectiveevidence (but the appraisal conclusion except), should be after the judicial staff tocollect. Legislation engagement is mainly reflected in the administrative penalty andcriminal punishment standard connection and concurrent articulation. Section fourthpresents comprehensive analysis of legal crime legislation should carry out specificadvice. Famous German scholar, has pointed out:" punishment like a two-edgedsword, use not when, national and individual two victim". The restraining criminallegislation is rooted in penalty double-edged nature of coping. It includes the crimeof criminal legislation and penalty modesty modesty. The control principle ofrestraining criminal law, the author has analyzed our country on the crime andpenalty structure are worth reviewing. In the criminal context, only unilateral "crime", not timely" decriminalization", led to the criminal hypertrophy peep; addingnew crimes less scrupulous, did not consider and existing charge inclusion orconflict; criminal law and judicial interpretation of the relevant provisions are tooharsh, did not consider and civil, administrative legal connection problem. In thestructure of penalty, the death penalty is still too much; free punishment and criminalpenalties apply scale is not harmonious, Non-Imprisoned punishment ratio is nothigh; the supplementary punishment of deprivation of political rights in the range istoo wide. For this, the author puts forward the legal crime, legislation, should adhereto the principle of restraining criminal law legislation, adhere to the appropriateintervention, limit the scope of punishment, established in accordance withprinciples, constructing a reasonable structure of legal crime penalty, realizingeffective control and promoting social and economic development of the united.The third chapter:the statutory crime and count. This chapter is divided intofour sections. The first section and the third section from the perspective of judicialpractice in different counts of statutory crime legal problems. The statutory crimehas dual illegality, it is easy to cause the prepositive administrative law and criminallaw norms of legal crime constitution important document and elements specified isinconsistent, which caused legal problems. According to the different counts,statutory crime criminal law norms can be divided into two types: blank descriptionof crime criminal law and regulations stated blank counts complete criminal law.Accordingly, the legal commit prepositive administrative legal norms and depend on the criminal law norms, in accordance with the counts of different can distinguishbetween two kinds of relations, namely the prepositive administrative legal norms onthe blank criminal law supplement and the complete criminal attachment. Prepositiveadministrative law changes, added blank prepositive administrative legal norms ofcriminal law should be applied from the old and the principle of lighter punishment;criminal law depend on completely prepositive administrative legal norms applicablerules of interpretation of criminal law, see attachment a counts and counts ofcriminal law. See Synonyms at complete prepositive administrative legal norms aresubjective explanation, application of the criminal law objectivity in interpretationrules. Section fourth of the two legal systems of legal crime through the comparisonon the legislation, perfecting the legal crime legislation. In the continental lawsystem and Anglo-American law system countries, areas of legal crime legislation,adopt double-track, to reconcile the constancy of natural crime and mutability of thestatutory offender is contradictory, realize the criminal legislation of the stability andsocial adaptability; and the establishment of dangerous criminal negligence or strictliability, in order to deal with the harm public security crime, harm public healthcrime need, realize criminal law on the individual legal interests and public safetyprotection. In the light of our country the legal crime legislation monorail systemdefects, it is necessary to take the legal crime legislation system; and the legalcommit crime from" to a harmful result as the center" to" the duty of care as thecenter " the transformation, the general rules of the criminal law provisions of theaddition of involuntary dangerous crime, to maintain the general rules of the criminallaw and the special coordination.The fourth chapter:the statutory crime and illegal consciousness. This chapter isdivided into three sections. By the first quarter of the illegal consciousness ofhistorical research, a comprehensive introduction to the illegal consciousnessdevelopment, evolution of. Illegal consciousness is generally from the opposite errorof prohibition, experienced" ignorance of the law does not know the law is no excuse,no exception to the principle of prohibition, distinguish errors and constitutiveelements of error, error into the prohibited deliberately, forbidding wrong as thefactors of liability " development, evolution process. From the legislative, judicial,1810" French penal code" set " ignorance of the law is no excuse" principle, theUnited States of America1957blue Potter case reflects the ignorance of the law isno exception to the principle of. In1871," the German penal code" only provides elements of error, the1952federal court criminal sentencing commission ruling onMarch18,1952that the illegal consciousness as the factors of liability. In1975," thefederal criminal code prohibits" increases the error terms, to distinguish theprohibition mistake and constitutive elements of error, in the prohibition mistake,distinguish the inevitable disable error and can avoid forbidden error. Section secondelaborates the relationship between intentional and illegal consciousness, putforward to want to walk out the misunderstanding of deliberately. In the intentionaland illegal consciousness relationship theory, there have always been" exclusion","need to say"," independent"," criminal law of our country to need to say" to dealwith illegal consciousness and intentional relations, it is long-term since the criminallaw theory of errors. Therefore, the author puts forward should walk out of deliberateerrors, profits from the mainland legal system theory of criminal law, the illegalconsciousness as a kind of independent subjective factors of liability, deliberatelyexcluding illegal consciousness, just to the fact of behavior understanding. The thirdfestival of statutory crime intentionally comprehensive and illegal consciousnessrelations. The legal commit intentional and illegal consciousness relations, there hasalways been "the illegal consciousness do not say" and" illegal consciousness needto say" contend for, to say and to distinguish " say" and" responsibility". I agree withthe" responsibility", namely the legal commit intentionally, not including the illegalconsciousness, law consciousness is the responsibility of the elements, but theresponsibility to distinguish two kinds of circumstances, has justified reasons (cannot avoid the prohibition mistake), can hinder sin shall not be penalized, withoutjustifiable reasons (to avoid ban error), can not be hindered sin but can be mitigatedpunishment. In addition, this section also study of statutory crime illegalconsciousness and illegality fault and the relationship between statutory crimeprohibition mistake can avoid the judgement standard.The fifth Chapter:the statutory crime and character of crime. This chapter isdivided into three sections. The first section describes the legal crime and intentionalcriminal cessation pattern relationship. Intentional criminal cessation patternincluding the accomplished crime, preparation for a crime, criminal attempt anddiscontinuance of crime. The author puts forward the legal commit intentionalcrimes, and to stop the form relation is the statutory crime, crime punishment,according to the incremental risk theory, the legal commit preparation andsuspension principle can not be punished and attempted behavioral choice of punishment. Section second describes the statutory crime and joint crime ofmorphological relations. First of all, this section describes the statutory crime andjoint crime human relations. Criminal law in the continental law system will becommon crime divided into principal and (narrow) accomplice, how to distinguish,the criminal law theory subjective theory, objective theory and behavior controltheory argument. The author analyzed the endorsing behavioral dominance theoryreasons: either objective or subjective theory theory, are not appropriate in theprincipal offender and accomplice, and behavior control theory comprehensiveobjective theory and subjective theory, adhere to the unity of the objective andsubjective. As the narrow accomplice accomplice in criminal theory, and therelationship, exists accomplice dependency and accomplice independency ofopposites. Because of the recognition of criminal behavior control theory, thencorresponding to only be accomplice dependency theory, and the criminal law of ourcountry is taken from the theory of accomplice. Statutory crime joint principaloffenders identified, with natural crime is different, in the body (including corporatecrime crime unit). In the legal commit narrow accomplice cognizance, also need topersist accomplice from the said properties. Secondly, this section describes thestatutory crime and joint crime constitution relationship. Common crime should beto meet in one and the same constitution of crime as a premise? The existence of thiscrime in criminal law theory common theory and the behavioral common opposition.The author analyzed the aligned portion of common crime that reason: because thataccords with Chinese criminal law and the principle of subject and object consistent,and can be reasonably identified the reality of accomplice phenomenon. Accordingto the said, the statutory crime crime constitution of common recognition, as long asmore than two people on the part of crime is common behavior and commonintentional (with coincident properties), set up joint crime; in the establishment ofjoint crimes, and were convicted of possibility. Section third elaborates on therelationship between the statutory committed and quantity of crime. AlthoughChina’s criminal law theory of a crime of a variety of different categories reallybelong to only Implicated in the quantity of crime study of the Criminal Law,Lapping of Legal Provisions guilty and Imaginative Joinder of three. Real competingis a substantial number of offenses, mainly to study the problem of graft, andtherefore it is not the object of study of this section. Accordingly, this section guiltyof three quantity of crime Implicated, Imaginative Joinder and Lapping of Legal Provisions for the study and analysis of the definition and punishment of statutorycommitted in the above-mentioned quantity of crime. First, this section shall apply toImplicated from a heavy off principle. Statutory commit is characterized by strongprofessional, usually acts by means of some method, these methods acts of criminallaw will be independently specified as crime, to use these methods, you may set upImplicated. Implicated in the statutory committed the same from heavy off principle.Second, this section states Imaginative Joinder shall apply to the felony principle,this principle applies equally the Statutory committed the Imaginative Joinder,China’s criminal law and judicial interpretation of the explicit provisions. Again, thissection describes the Lapping of Legal Provisions guilty included a specialrelationship between the law, including the special relationship, complementarity,and absorption relations; discussed Lapping of Legal Provisions guilty of statutorytransgressions law application principles, including:(committed1) Specialrelationship Lapping of Legal Provisions applicable special law superior to commonlaw-based, heavy method is better than light method, supplemented by the principle,(2) to supplement relations Lapping of Legal Provisions guilty of the application ofthe principle of weight method is better than light law (3) absorption relationshipLapping of Legal Provisions committed to apply the absorption method is superior tothe principle of the method is absorbed.更多还原