提供假药罪主观责任要素认定及出罪路径探析  

Identification of subjective liability factors for the crime of providing counterfeit drugs and analysis of the path to decriminalization

作　　者：李金珂 张进帅 Li Jinke;Zhang Jinshuai(Beijing Normal University,Beijing 100875,China)

机构地区：[1]北京师范大学,北京100875

出　　处：《辽宁公安司法管理干部学院学报》2024年第2期80-88,共9页Journal of Liaoning Administrators College of Police and Justice

基　　金：2023年北京市社会科学基金重点项目“轻罪治理中刑事司法问题与路径选择”(项目编号:23FXA005)的阶段性研究成果。

摘　　要：《中华人民共和国刑法修正案(十一)》在“生产、销售假药罪”的基础上新增了“提供假药罪”的犯罪类型。正确处理提供假药案件,首先,应当明确传统的推定规则无法解决新罪体系下“明知”的认定问题,行为人所“明知”的不是其行为将产生严重危害他人生命健康法益的实害后果,而是将使他人生命健康法益处于危险状态中;其次,应当通过主观超过要素的一般描述与具体判断,对本罪的“营利目的”进行教义学解读;最后,出于刑法的谦抑性,对于违反药品监管秩序,但未造成生命健康法益受侵害的提供假药案件,可以借助危险反证的方法,或发挥“但书”条款在具体案件中的出罪功能,予以出罪。The“Eleventh Amendment to the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China”adds a new crime type of“the crime of providing counterfeit drugs”on the basis of“the crime of producing and selling counterfeit drugs”.To correctly handle the case of providing counterfeit drugs,first of all,it should be clear that the traditional presumption rules cannot solve the problem of“knowing perfectly well”under the new crime system,that is,what the perpetrator“knowing perfectly well”does not mean that his behavior will have actual harmful consequences that seriously endanger the life,health and legal interests of others,but it will put the life and health of others in a dangerous state;secondly,the“profit-making purpose”of this crime should be interpreted doctrinally through a general description and specific judgment of subjective overriding factors;finally,out of the modesty of criminal law,for the cases of providing counterfeit drugs that violate the drug regulatory order but do not infringe the interests of life and health,it can be decriminalized by using the method of dangerous counter-evidence or by using the“proviso”clause in specific cases.

关 键 词：提供假药罪 明知 营利目的 “但书”条款 

分 类 号：D924.3[政治法律—刑法学]