刑法中的“应知”引入的滥觞及标准限定  

The Origin of "Should Know" in Criminal Law and Its Standard

作　　者：孙万怀[1] 刘宁[1] 

机构地区：[1]华东政法大学,上海200043

出　　处：《法学杂志》2015年第9期32-45,共14页Law Science Magazine

摘　　要：在认定主观时,随着推定的引入与国家的介入,刑法中的"明知"正向"应知"不断位移。然而"应知"的理论研究与司法实践存在一定脱节,有必要对"应知"作出一番疏浚。从附属到独立,从推论到推定,"应知"逐步迈向体系化。同时,将侵权法中的一般理性人标准移植到刑法认定"应知"中来,并在法定犯领域进行进一步的理论拓展具有重大理论意义,其理论基础在于它契合了司法平等、公正、效率、正义。在"应知"的认定方法上应坚持刑事证明与刑事推定并举,同时应注意到司法解释某些情形看似推定,实为间接证明的证据要求,推定必须要设定除斥条件,不是推定则不需要设定除斥条件。对"应知"的认定程度应为排除合理怀疑。鉴于法定犯的刑事司法实践远远少于民事或行政实践的现实,对"应知"的民事推定结论可直接适用于刑事。When identified the subjective, along with the introduction of presumption and state intervention, the Criminal Law of ＂know＂ constantly displace ＂should know＂ However, there is a disconnect about the theory research and judicial practice of ＂should know＂, it is necessary for ＂should know＂ to make some corresponding dredging. From affiliated to independence, from inference to presumption, ＂ should know＂ gradually move towards systematic. Meanwhile, transplanting the general person standard of Tort Law to the Criminal Law to identify ＂should know＂ and in the statutory guilty field for further theoretical development, has great theoretical significance. Its theoretical basis is that it fits the equality, fairness, efficiency, and justice. The identification method of ＂should know＂ should adhere to prove and presumption simultaneously. At the same time, we should pay attention to the Judicial interpretation of certain seemingly constructive, in fact, it is the indirect proof of evidence requirements. The presumption must be scheduled some conditions, otherwise, it does not need to set scheduled conditions. The identified extent of ＂should know＂ should be the ＂beyond a reasonable doubt＂. In view of the reality that the criminal justice practice of statutory guilty is far less than civil or administrative practice, the conclusion of the civil presumption can be directly applied to the Criminal Law.

关 键 词：“应知” 刑事推定 一般理性人 法定犯 

分 类 号：D924[政治法律—刑法学]