传授犯罪方法罪的功能检视、法益辨正与规则建构  

The Function Inspection,Legal Benefit Discrimination and Rule Construction of the Crime of Imparting Criminal Methods

作　　者：赖隹文 LAI Zhui-wen(Hainan University Law School,Haikou,Hainan 570228,China)

机构地区：[1]海南大学法学院,海南海口570228

出　　处：《时代法学》2023年第5期75-89,共15页Presentday Law Science

基　　金：国家社科基金项目“新型网络犯罪对传统刑事法理论的突破与应对研究”(2019FBX062)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：社会治安秩序法益观可保障传授犯罪方法罪司法适用的适度,也有利于回应风险社会时代兼顾事后打击与事前预防的刑事政策意蕴。把传授犯罪方法罪界定为行为犯、形式犯的观点背离了法益保护初衷,秉持抽象危险犯的实质解释路径才能妥善解决传授犯罪方法的归责问题。传授犯罪方法罪与共犯的界分需遵循个案关联度规则,回归具体个案场景,围绕合理的时间间隔期、犯罪计划的连续性两大方面展开判断,这有利于厘清两者界限与实践纠偏。个案关联度规则除了正向的要素检验外,还需结合“但书”条款及实质违法性等要素进行反向的妥当性考察,由此方可平衡形式理性与实质理性,进而在精准的刑法适用中实现刑法正义。The concept of legal interests in social security order can ensure the appropriate judicial application of the crime of imparting criminal methods,and is also conducive to responding to the criminal policy implications of balancing post strike and pre prevention in the era of risk society.The view that the crime of imparting criminal methods is defined as an act offense or a formal offense deviates from the original intention of legal interest protection.Only by following the substantive interpretation path of abstract dangerous crimes can the problem of attribution of criminal methods be properly solved.The distinction between the crime of imparting criminal methods and accomplices needs to follow the rules of case correlation,return to specific case scenarios,and make judgments around reasonable time intervals and the continuity of criminal plans.This is conducive to clarifying the boundary between the two and correcting practical deviations.In addition to the positive element test,the rule of case relevance also needs to be combined with the“proviso”clause,substantive Criminal defenses and other elements to conduct a reverse appropriateness inspection,so as to balance formal rationality and substantive rationality,and then achieve criminal justice in the accurate application of criminal law.

关 键 词：补漏角色 社会治安秩序 个案关联度 场景限制 

分 类 号：D914[政治法律—刑法学]