论继续犯的举止判断

On the Demeanor Judgment of Continuing Offenders

既往观点大多认为,继续犯的本质特征在于“(实行)行为与不法状态的同时继续”,但无论将这种继续性的行为理解为作为、不作为或拟制的实行行为,均无法契合行为主义原则的基本内涵。本文旨在表明,继续犯的本质属性在于结果的继续,其区别于状态犯的关键在于,二者分别揭示了刑法中两种不同的结果观:前者指代以同一法益侵害/危殆化状态的时间更新为构成要件结果的犯罪,而后者指代以法益状态的质的变化历程为构成要件结果的犯罪。基于此,向来被归为继续犯的持有/支配型犯罪的举止判断,则有待再度审视。为避免不当的“思想处罚”,于此类犯罪中应先行筛选出可将结果向之归属的、作为归责关联起点的举止形态,继而在个案中逐一审查相关举止是否具有担负起行为之名的实体。此时,不应将“持有”等术语笼统地转译为作为或不作为,亦不应在持有/支配型犯罪的领域例外地肯定“状态责任”。

Most of the previous views believe that the essential characteristic of the continuing offense lies in the"simultaneous continuation of the act and the wrongful state",but whether the continuing act is understood as an act,an omission,or a proposed act of commission,it does not fit the basic connotation of the behaviorist principle.The purpose of this article is to show that the essential attribute of the continuing offense lies in the continuation of the result,and the key to distinguish it from the state offense is that the two different views of result in criminal law:the former refers to the crime in which the temporal renewal of the same state of legal interest infringement is the constituent result,while the latter refers to the crime in which the qualitative course of change of the state of legal interest is the constituent result.For this reason,the judgment of possession crimes,which have been classified as continuing offenses,needs to be re-examined.In order to avoid undue"ideological punishment,"the term possession should not be translated into general terms such as act or omission,nor should"state responsibility"be exceptionally affirmed in the field of possession crimes.