论刑事既判力范围的确定  

Debates on Res Judicata in Criminal Law

作　　者：郭烁 GUO Shuo

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学诉讼法学研究院

出　　处：《法学评论》2023年第5期92-102,共11页Law Review

基　　金：北京市社会科学基金重点项目“大数据侦查视野下的公民基本权利保护研究”(项目编号:20FXA003)的阶段性成果;中国政法大学青年教师学术创新团队支持计划“行政法典立法研究”(编号:21CXTD07)资助。

摘　　要：既判力概念的逻辑起点在于维护生效判决的终局性。相对而言,不起诉决定无既判力,但基于程序安定性和对被追诉人信赖利益保护的要求,有必要对重新起诉的条件有所限制。既判力范围的确定依据系“单一刑罚权下的审判范围”,在此逻辑之下,以“牵连犯”“连续犯”为代表的“复数犯罪事实构成单一刑罚权”的既判力理论应当修正;违反诉审同一原则的“瑕疵判决”的既判力确定规则有待重新检视。《刑法》第70条所谓“判决后发现漏罪”的“漏罪”应被解释为“复数诉讼客体”下之“漏判”而非“单一诉讼客体”下之“漏未判决”。The logical starting point of res judicata is to preserve the finality of the effective judgment.By comparison,non-prosecution decision has no res judicata effect,but it is necessary to limit the conditions for re-prosecution based on the requirements of procedural stability and protection of the reliance interest of the prosecuted person.It is notable that the scope of res judicata is based on“the scope of trial under one single power of penalty”.Under this logic,res judicata under“plurality of criminal facts constituting one single power of penalty”which is represented by implicated offence and continuing offence should be revised.The rules for determining the res judicata of“defective judgments”which violate the principle of the identity of accusation and trial need to be re-examined.The so-called“omitted crime”which is discovered after declaration of judgement under Art.70 of the Criminal Law should be interpreted as“omission of judgment”under“plural objects of criminal procedure”rather than“miss of judgment”under“single object of criminal procedure”.

关 键 词：既判力 法安定性 单一刑罚权不可分割原理 诉讼客体 

分 类 号：D924.1[政治法律—刑法学]