抽象危险犯反证出罪的实践展开  

Practical Application of Exculpation Through Counter-Evidence for Abstract Endangerment Offenses

作　　者：敦宁 DUN Ning(School of Law,Dalian Maritime University,Dalian 116026,China)

机构地区：[1]大连海事大学法学院,辽宁大连116026

出　　处：《烟台大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2025年第2期73-85,共13页Journal of Yantai University(Philosophy and Social Science Edition)

基　　金：国家社会科学基金项目“预防型犯罪的法治体系构造研究”(19BFX068)。

摘　　要：在我国“定性+定量”的犯罪成立模式下,应当承认对抽象危险犯可以反证出罪。抽象危险犯的反证出罪,核心是有效证明行为不存在侵害法益的现实危险性。为此,需要准确认定抽象危险犯的保护法益,并对行为之现实危险性做出规范判断。对于前者,在根据刑法分则的章节标题提示难以形成自洽性结论时,应以行为预期的法益侵害为依据进行补正性确定;对于后者,应当先判断行为是否具备可能造成法益侵害的危险属性,而后再对行为之现实危险性进行个案确证。另外,抽象危险犯反证出罪的证明责任应由控方承担,不能将犯罪嫌疑人或被告人所享有的辩护权等同于证明责任。Under the“qualitative+quantitative”model of crime establishment,it should be recognized that abstract endangerment offenses can be subject to exculpation through counter-evidence.As the core of this exculpation mechanism,it is to effectively prove that the act does not pose a real danger of infringing upon legal interests.To this end,it is necessary to accurately identify the legal interests protected by abstract endangerment offenses and to make a normative judgment on the real danger of the act.For the former,when it is difficult to form a self-consistent conclusion based on the chapter headings of the specific provisions of criminal law,a corrective determination should be made based on the expected infringement of legal interests.For the latter,we should first determine whether the act possesses the attribute of danger that may cause infringement of legal interests,and then ascertain the real danger of the act in a specific case.In addition,the burden of proof for exculpation through counter-evidence in abstract endangerment offenses should be borne by the prosecution.The right of defense enjoyed by the suspect or defendant cannot be equated with the burden of proof.

关 键 词：抽象危险犯 反证出罪 保护法益 现实危险性 证明责任 

分 类 号：D917[政治法律—法学]