“合理使用”公开的个人信息出罪路径的法教义学建构——从最高人民法院第194号指导性案例切入  

Legal Dogmatics Construction of the Decriminalization Path for “Reasonable Use” of Public Personal Information: With Focus on the Guiding Case No. 194 Decided by the Supreme People’s Court of PRC

作　　者：王良顺[1] 李想 WANG Liangshun;LI Xiang(School of Criminal Justice,Zhongnan University of Economics and Law,Wuhan 430073,China)

机构地区：[1]中南财经政法大学刑事司法学院,湖北武汉430073

出　　处：《西安交通大学学报（社会科学版）》2024年第6期140-151,共12页Journal of Xi'an Jiaotong University：Social Sciences

基　　金：国家社会科学基金一般项目(23BFX114);司法部国家法治与法学理论研究一般项目(19SFB2021);中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助项目(202410719)。

摘　　要：为确保刑法与前置法的协调性以及统一司法适用,最高人民法院发布第194号指导性案例对“合理使用”公开的个人信息予以出罪处置的做法值得肯定,但所提供的出罪理由不仅说服力不够,甚至缺乏规范依据,亟须为“合理使用”公开的个人信息建构体系化且具有针对性的出罪路径。“合理使用”公开的个人信息未遵循知情同意的个人信息处理机制而侵犯了信息权利人的信息自决权。侵犯公民个人信息罪中“违反国家有关规定”要件的功能旨在向法律解释者提示个人信息处理行为可能存在违法阻却事由,无法借此排除“合理使用”公开的个人信息行为的构成要件符合性。“合理使用”公开的个人信息虽具有形式违法性,但基于法秩序统一性原则,民法或行政法中的正当化事由可以在刑法领域起到阻却行为违法性的效果,故而能够以实质违法性欠缺为由对“合理使用”公开的个人信息行为进行出罪。通过解构《中华人民共和国个人信息保护法》第二十七条的语义逻辑与考察“合理使用”的正当性基础,对于“合理使用”的判断应采取“行为效果标准”,即使用公开的个人信息没有造成法所不容许的利益损害的,就属于“合理使用”。In order to ensure the coordination between the criminal law and the pre-law as well as the unified judicial application, the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) issued the Guiding Case No. 194 to decriminalize “reasonable use” of public personal information, which is worthy of recognition, but the reasons provided are not only unconvincing, but also lack legal basis. In this context, it is of great significance to strictly follow the thinking mode of legal dogmatics to correctly delineate the boundary of criminal liability for “reasonable use” of public personal information.In fact, it is an issue of systematic judgment to discuss the decriminalization path of “reasonable use” of public personal information. First of all, “reasonable use” of public personal information without the informed consent of information right holder infringes the legal interest of crime of infringing citizens’ personal information—the right of information self-determination. Consequently, the legal interest of decriminalization path is blocked. Secondly, the lack of constitutive element compliance approach positions the element of “violation of the national relevant stipulations” in the crime of infringing citizens’ personal information as the constitutive element, but the function of this constitutive element is to remind the legal interpreters that there may be the justification in the processing of personal information, and it cannot be used to decriminalize the act of “reasonable use” of public personal information. Finally, based on the principle of the unity of legal order, the justification in civil law or administrative law can prevent the illegality of act in the field of criminal law, so “reasonable use” of public personal information can be decriminalized on the ground of lack of substantive illegality.The “purpose congeniality standard” adopted in Guiding Case No. 194 for the judgment of “reasonable use” is faced with many difficulties, and it is necess

关 键 词：个人信息 合理使用 知情同意 信息自决权 出罪路径 行为效果标准 正当化事由 

分 类 号：D924.34[政治法律—刑法学] D922.16[政治法律—法学]