法律拟制解释的现状、问题及限缩  

The Status,Problem,and Limitation of Interpretation to Legal Fiction

作　　者：苏永生[1] 王煜东 SU Yong-sheng;WANG Yu-dong

机构地区：[1]河北大学法学院

出　　处：《河北学刊》2025年第3期190-199,共10页Hebei Academic Journal

基　　金：2023年度国家社会科学基金一般项目“环境犯罪治理的数字化应对策略研究”(23BFX118)。

摘　　要：中国现行法律拟制理论认为,将本来不符合所依照的条款规定的犯罪构成之行为规定为按照该条款定罪处罚的,均属于法律拟制,包括将此罪拟制为彼罪、将无罪拟制为有罪和将过失拟制为故意三种类型。将此罪拟制为彼罪的解释结论基本上符合刑法法理,将无罪拟制为有罪和将过失拟制为故意的解释结论虽然符合“依照”型条款的文义,但在很大程度上违背了刑法法理。导致解释结论存在问题的深层原因是,解释者在解释向度上企图穷尽刑法文义,在解释理念上奉行机械的法律至上主义,在解释立场上坚持“原教旨”意义上的形式解释论。在解释某种“依照”型规定是否属于法律拟制时,应当在该“依照”型规定的文义范围内根据刑法法理作出解释。由此出发,应当将刑法上的法律拟制限缩解释为将此罪拟制为彼罪。According to China’s current legal fiction theory,it is the legal fiction in criminal law that an act is convicted and punished in accordance with the followed articles,but this act does not originally conform to the regulated constitution of crime in this article.The legal fiction in criminal law includes presuming this crime as that crime,presuming innocence as guilt and presuming fault as intent.The interpretation of presuming this crime as that crime mainly conforms to criminal law’s jurisprudence.The interpretation of presuming innocence as guilt and presuming fault as intent conforms to the word meaning of the followed clauses,but violates criminal law’s jurisprudence to a great extent.The deep reason for this interpretation is that the interpreters try to exhaust the word meaning of criminal law in interpretation dimension,pursue the mechanical legal supremacy in interpretation idea,and adhere to the formal interpretation theory in the sense of“fundamentalism”in interpretation position.When judging whether a followed article belongs to legal fiction,the interpreter should interpret it within the scope of its word meaning.From this,the legal fiction in criminal law only includes presuming this crime as that crime.

关 键 词：法律拟制 刑法法理 限缩解释 

分 类 号：D924.1[政治法律—刑法学]