形式判断与实质判断的关系厘正——对“形式入罪、实质出罪”用语的反思  

Clarifying the Relationship Between Formal Judgment and Substantive Judgment--A Reflection on the Phrase “Formal Judgment in Criminalization, Substantive Judgment for Decriminalization”

作　　者：王志祥 郑伊可 Wang Zhixiang;Zheng Yike

机构地区：[1]北京师范大学刑事法律科学研究院,北京100875 [2]北京师范大学法学院,北京100875

出　　处：《江西社会科学》2025年第1期143-152,208,共11页Jiangxi Social Sciences

基　　金：国家社会科学基金一般项目“形式理性与实质理性的关系在刑法学中的展开研究”(21BFX009)。

摘　　要：入罪和出罪涉及犯罪成立判断的问题。在犯罪成立的判断中,形式判断解决合法性问题,实质判断解决合理性问题。不论在何种犯罪论体系中,均涉及形式判断和实质判断,且二者均具有入罪和出罪两方面的功能。通过犯罪论体系评价为构成犯罪的行为,应当是经过形式判断和实质判断后均应入罪的行为,而不成立犯罪的行为,则既可以是经过形式判断后出罪的行为,也可以是经过实质判断后出罪的行为。概括而言,在犯罪成立判断中,形式判断和实质判断的关系为“入罪需统一,出罪可择一”,而非“形式入罪,实质出罪”。Criminalization and decriminalization are process that involve determining whether a crime has occurred. In this context, formal judgment addresses the legality of an action, while substantive judgment considers its reasonableness. Both formal and substantive judgments play crucial roles in criminal theory, with each having the capacity to either criminalize or exonerate. For an act to be considered criminal through the system of criminal theory, it must pass both formal and substantive judgments. On the other hand, the act that does not constitute a crime can be either the act that was convicted after formal judgment or the act that was convicted after substantive judgment. In summary, in the determination of criminal establishment, the relationship between formal and substantive judgments is that “crime formation requires both formal and substantive judgments, decriminalization through formal or substantive judgments”, rather than “formal judgment in criminalization, substantive judgment for decriminalization”.

关 键 词：形式判断 实质判断 犯罪成立 形式入罪 实质出罪 

分 类 号：DF61[政治法律—刑法学]