本文選題：刑法解釋限度 + 文義射程說��； 參考：《湘潭大學》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：刑法解釋限度是指刑事司法解釋所能達致的最遠距離與范圍，，其主要內(nèi)容包括刑法擴張解釋的限度、限制解釋的限度以及刑法解釋與刑事立法的區(qū)分。刑法解釋限度的法理基礎是罪刑法定原則，現(xiàn)實依據(jù)則是我國現(xiàn)行司法解釋制定、適用之亂象。解決刑法解釋限度問題的關鍵在于對限度標準的把握，對此問題，刑法理論界主要存在文義射程說、國民預測可能性說、犯罪定型說、犯罪定型修正說、明顯突兀感說等學說分歧。應該說，這些學說的討論是極具價值的，為準確把握刑法解釋的限度標準提供了有益的思考方向，然而，通過對其內(nèi)容、意義以及缺陷的分析發(fā)現(xiàn)，這些學說都難言就是合理的限度標準本身。實際上，刑法解釋限度的最大意義是在為刑法適用提供一種內(nèi)在合理外在合法的解釋規(guī)則，站在更為務實或曰便于司法適用的立場去討論才是一種更為可取的方向。應當看到，刑法規(guī)范的含義并不完全等同于刑法條文在詞典中的含義，只有準確理解每個刑法規(guī)范的性質(zhì)與目的，才能準確解釋刑法。作為解釋刑法重要一環(huán)的刑法解釋限度，理應受到刑法規(guī)范特殊的性質(zhì)與目的的制約。由此所決定，刑法解釋限度標準可以表述為“以法益侵害為基準的規(guī)范本質(zhì)說”。“規(guī)范本質(zhì)說”主要有兩個核心要素：法益侵害與規(guī)范本質(zhì)。法益侵害是行為入罪化解釋的第一道關卡：有法益侵害才能入罪；重法益侵害才能入重罪。但是，也并非任何有法益侵害的行為都應入罪，行為最終能否入罪還應受到第二道關卡即規(guī)范本質(zhì)的限制。所謂規(guī)范本質(zhì)，是指能夠區(qū)分罪與非罪、此罪與彼罪的刑法規(guī)范的本質(zhì)含義與屬性。對規(guī)范本質(zhì)的把握主要有以下幾點因素可供考量：一是規(guī)范本質(zhì)必須體現(xiàn)刑法的規(guī)范目的并與規(guī)范目的相互印證與說明；二是對單個刑法條文的理解必須結(jié)合整個刑法規(guī)范并盡可能地與整個刑法體系相協(xié)調(diào)；三是對刑法規(guī)范本質(zhì)的理解應當順應社會發(fā)展的實際情況并體現(xiàn)出刑法規(guī)范的特殊性之所在。總之，任何行為，只有兼具實質(zhì)入罪合理性的“法益侵害”與形式入罪合法性的“規(guī)范本質(zhì)”，才是刑法意義上的犯罪行為。
[Abstract]:The limit of criminal law interpretation refers to the farthest distance and scope that can be achieved by criminal judicial interpretation. Its main content includes the limit of criminal law expansion interpretation, the limitation of criminal law interpretation and the distinction between criminal law interpretation and criminal legislation.The legal basis of the limit of the interpretation of criminal law is the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a crime, while the realistic basis is the confusion in the formulation and application of the current judicial interpretation in our country.The key to solve the problem of the limit of interpretation of criminal law is to grasp the standard of limitation. To this problem, there are mainly theories of range of literary meaning, possibility of national prediction, theory of crime stereotyping, theory of amendment of crime stereotype,It is obvious that the theory of sudden feeling is different.It should be said that the discussion of these theories is of great value and provides a useful direction of thinking for accurately grasping the limit standard of the interpretation of criminal law. However, through the analysis of its content, significance and defects, it is found that,These doctrines cannot be said to be reasonable limits per se.In fact, the maximum meaning of the limit of the interpretation of criminal law is to provide an internal, reasonable and external legal interpretation rule for the application of criminal law, and it is a preferable direction to discuss it from a more pragmatic or convenient position of judicial application.It should be noted that the meaning of criminal law norms is not exactly equivalent to the meaning of criminal law provisions in the dictionary. Only by accurately understanding the nature and purpose of each criminal law norm can criminal law be accurately interpreted.As an important part of the interpretation of criminal law, the limit of criminal law interpretation should be restricted by the special nature and purpose of criminal law norms.Therefore, the limit standard of criminal law interpretation can be expressed as "the normative essence theory based on the infringement of legal interests".There are two core elements of normative essence: legal interest infringement and normative essence.Legal interest infringement is the first step in the interpretation of behavior incrimination: only legal interest infringement can be criminalized; law interest infringement can be considered as felony.However, not all acts that have legal interests should be criminalized, and whether they can be incriminated or not should be restricted by the nature of the second hurdle.The so-called normative essence refers to the essential meaning and attribute of the criminal law norm which can distinguish the crime from the non-crime.To grasp the essence of norms, there are the following factors to be considered: first, the essence of norms must embody the normative purpose of criminal law and confirm and explain each other with the purpose of norms;Second, the understanding of individual articles of criminal law must be combined with the whole criminal law norms and be coordinated with the whole criminal law system as much as possible;Third, the understanding of the essence of criminal law norms should conform to the actual situation of social development and reflect the particularity of criminal law norms.In a word, any act is a criminal act in the sense of criminal law only if the "legal interest infringement" and the "normative essence" of the legality of formal incrimination are both reasonable and substantial.
【學位授予單位】：湘潭大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D914

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 林維;;論刑法立法解釋權與立法權和司法權的糾葛[J];當代法學;2006年05期

2 龔振軍;;刑法解釋限度新論——以日本刑法學說為主要切入點[J];當代法學;2010年02期

3 許浩;;刑法解釋的基本立場——對實用主義法律解釋觀的論證[J];東方法學;2008年06期

4 黃明儒;;論行政刑法規(guī)范的適用與罪刑法定原則[J];法律科學(西北政法大學學報);2009年03期

5 杜宇;刑法視域中“理性預期”的初步考察[J];復旦學報(社會科學版);2005年03期

6 黃明儒;;也論刑法規(guī)范的概念[J];佛山科學技術學院學報(社會科學版);2008年05期

7 黃明儒;;限時刑法探究[J];法商研究;2008年01期

8 劉仁文;關于刑法解釋的時間效力問題[J];法學雜志;2003年01期

9 張明楷;刑法理念與刑法解釋[J];法學雜志;2004年04期

10 馮軍;;論刑法解釋的邊界和路徑——以擴張解釋與類推適用的區(qū)分為中心[J];法學家;2012年01期

本文編號：1760519