«上一篇/Previous Article|本期目录/Table of Contents|下一篇/Next Article»

《南京师大学报》（社会科学版）[ISSN:1006-6977/CN:61-1281/TN]

卷:

期数:

2020年03期

页码:

116-126

栏目:

法学研究

出版日期:

2020-05-31

文章信息/Info

Title:

Systematic Interpretation and Purpose Limitation:An Analysis of theRules Governing the Interpretation of Cases Involving Concurrencebetween Administrative and Criminal Laws

作者:

蔡道通

南京师范大学法学院,中国法治现代化研究院,江苏高校区域法治发展协同中心(南京210023)

Author(s):

CAI Daotong

关键词:

体系解释;  目的限缩;  行刑竞合;  罪刑法定原则;  法秩序统一性

Keywords:

systematic interpretation;  purpose limitation;  concurrence between administrative and criminal laws;  principle of nulla poena sine lege;  unity of legal order

摘要:

对于经济领域行刑竞合问题的行政犯刑事不法的判断,必须以行政不法为前提。包括“兜底条款”在内的行政规范与刑事规范,必须在法秩序统一的原则下,作体系性解释。体系性解释也应当包括行政法律、法规内部的一体性诠释,前置法中有类型化规定的情形,特别是有刑事责任条款与没有刑事法律后果的区别规定,刑事不法的认定必须给予基本的敬畏与尊重。刑法作为“二次法”,对于经济领域的行刑竞合案件的处理,特别具有理念的引领作用。行政规范的目的定位与刑事规范的目的指向有不同的旨趣,根据罪刑法定原则的要求,目的解释只应当作为出罪依据,而不能作为入罪理由,目的限缩应当是不符合规范目的的行刑竞合案件出罪化的根据,对于“兜底条款”的解释更是如此。

Abstract:

The judgement of whether an administrative violation act in economic area is also against criminal law and thus involves concurrence between administrative law and criminal law should presuppose the violation of administrative law. The administrative and criminal regulations including the miscellaneous clauses should be given a systematic interpretation under the unity of legal order. The systematic interpretations in this sense should also include the integrated internal interpretations within the system of administrative law and administrative regulations. The determination of the violation of criminal law should show due respect to typological specifications, if any, in the administrative regulations presupposed by criminal law and in particular the differential specifications made by the clauses involving criminal liability and no criminal legal consequences. It is of great guiding significance in concept to take criminal law as the secondary law in the economic cases involving concurrence between administrative law and criminal law. The administrative regulations differ from criminal regulations in target, and thus according to the principle of nulla poena sine lege, the interpretation of purpose should only be used as a reason for acquittal rather than for conviction:the limitation of purpose should be the basis for the acquittal decision in the cases involving concurrence between administrative and criminal laws which is against the purpose of the regulations and this is particularly true for the interpretation of miscellaneous clauses.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:

蔡道通,法学博士,南京师范大学法学院教授、博士生导师,中国法治现代化研究院研究员,江苏高校区域法治发展协同中心研究员(南京210023)。本文为国家哲学社会科学基金项目“经济犯罪‘兜底条款’解释规则研究”(16BFX088)部分成果,并得到“江苏高校优势学科建设工程资助项目”(PAPD)资助。CAI Daotong is Professor and PhD Supervisor at School of Law, Nanjing Normal University(Nanjing 210023).

常用功能

更新日期/Last Update: 2020-05-31