“法定犯”视角下著作权犯罪民刑衔接的限度  

The limit of connection between civil law and criminal law about copyright crime from the perspective of statutory offense

作　　者：姚万勤[1] 李灿 YAO Wanqin;LI Can(Intelligent Justice Research Institute,Southwest University of Political Science and Law,Chongqing 401120,P.R.China;Law School,Southwest University of Political Science and Law,Chongqing 401120,P.R.China)

机构地区：[1]西南政法大学智能司法研究院,重庆401120 [2]西南政法大学法学院,重庆401120

出　　处：《重庆大学学报（社会科学版）》2024年第5期249-260,共12页Journal of Chongqing University(Social Science Edition)

基　　金：西南政法大学智能司法研究院2022年度合规专项课题“企业合规改革的试点动因、模式选择及规范优化”(ZNHG2022K05)。

摘　　要：在加大知识产权保护的时代背景下,为了实现对著作权的周延保护,《著作权法》与《刑法》相关条款纷纷修改。条文的修改亟需阐释,两法之冲突亦应梳理。因此,有必要探讨著作权犯罪的民刑衔接问题,以既符合法秩序统一的要求,又最大程度满足知识产权的刑法保护需要。然而,主张著作权犯罪的民刑衔接不具有限度的“否定立场”,将使刑法产生处罚漏洞,与罪刑法定原则发生逻辑背离,致《刑法修正案(十一)》的修法效果大打折扣。考察其立论基础,分析“法定犯”属性对犯罪成立的影响,可知侵犯著作权罪应当坚持缓和的违法一元论,但没有根基对相关概念作出含义统一的要求,没有理由对“附属刑事责任条款”施加限制入罪的效力,刑法可以独立解释“复制、发行、通过信息网络向公众传播”行为的内涵。因此,需要确立以“违反前置法”为前提,旨在“实现刑法目的”的民刑衔接之限度的教义学方案。第一,在通过“违反前置法”实现衔接这一环节,应当严格依据《著作权法》确定作品是否享有特定著作权,以及犯罪嫌疑人是否侵犯著作权。倘若在这一步骤作出了否定的回答,则侵犯著作权罪必然不能成立。第二,在通过“实现刑法目的”确立限度这一环节,则应当遵循刑法的目的,考虑构成要件的文字范围与处罚必要性的大小,最终决定犯罪是否成立。具体而言,其一,合理解释“复制发行”的含义,包括复制、发行或者既复制又发行的行为。其中,单独的复制行为不应被排除在处罚范围之外,“发行”应当限制为“首次发行”和“总发行”,且发表与出租行为也属于发行行为的一种,但是出租书籍与复制发行违法演绎作品之行为因未侵犯著作权而不能入罪。其二,探讨“《著作权法》第52条”规定行为的入罪可能,肯定处罚“剽窃他人作品”“以注释方In the era of increasing intellectual property protection,in order to achieve comprehensive protection of copyright,relevant provisions of the Copyright Law and the Criminal Law have been amended.The revision of the provisions urgently needs to be explained,and the conflicts between the two laws should also be sorted out.Therefore,it is necessary to explore the connection between civil law and criminal law about copyright crimes,in order to not only meet the requirements of the unification of legal order,but also meet the needs of criminal law protection of intellectual property to the greatest extent.However,the negative stance of advocating that the connection is not limited will not only create loopholes in criminal law,but also logically deviate from the principle of statutory crime and punishment,and will reduce the effect of the amendment of the Criminal Law Amendment(11).By examining the basis of its argument and analyzing the influence of the attribute of statutory offense on the establishment of the crime,it is found that the crime of copyright infringement should adhere to the moderate monism of illegality,but there is no basis for making a unified meaning for the relevant concepts,and there is no reason to impose the effect of limiting criminalization on the subsidiary criminal liability clause.The criminal law can independently explain the connotation of the act of copying,distributing,and disseminating to the public through information networks.Therefore,it is necessary to establish a doctrinal plan that aims to achieve the purpose of criminal law and the limit of the connection,based on the premise of violating the preceding law.Firstly,in the process of achieving connection by violating the preceding law,the Copyright Law should be strictly followed to determine whether the work enjoys specific copyright and whether the suspect has infringed on copyright.If a negative answer is given at this step,the crime of copyright infringement cannot be established.Secondly,in the process of establishing limit

关 键 词：侵犯著作权罪 民刑衔接 法定犯 附属刑事责任条款 违法一元论 

分 类 号：D924.33[政治法律—刑法学] D923.41[政治法律—法学]