规范保护目的与构成要件解释

On the Relationship between Purpose of Normative Protection and Interpretation of Constituent Elements

在当前刑法学研究中,规范保护目的一词至少涉及三个场域:指涉法益的规范保护目的、指涉过失犯结果归属原理的规范保护目的以及指涉构成要件适用范围的规范保护目的。在对构成要件进行解释时,不乏观点将指涉法益的规范保护目的作为讨论重心,提倡一种以法益为中心的目的论解释,从而将指涉法益的规范保护目的与指涉构成要件适用范围的规范保护目的混为一谈,导致以法益的确定替代构成要件的解释,最终不当地为类推性的入罪化解释提供了学理支持。这种方法论的法益概念困囿于法律道德主义思维,存在着整体判断、循环论证、僭越立法等严重弊端,使法益概念本应具有的自由主义精神消失殆尽,并使刑法教义学丧失了批判品格。应抛弃指涉法益的规范保护目的所具有的入罪化解释功能,强调其在建构出罪化事由方面所具有的无法为比例原则所取代的作用,亦即应否认方法论的法益概念,提倡批判性的法益概念。

In the existing literature of criminal law,the term of the purpose of normative protection involves three fields:the purpose of normative protection referring to legal interest,the purpose of normative protection referring to the principle of the attribution of the result of negligent crime,and the purpose of normative protection referring to the scope of application of the constituent elements.When interpreting the constituent elements,there are so many scholars that regard the purpose of normative protection that refers to legal interest as the focus of discussion,promote a teleological interpretation centered on legal interest,and take the normative protection referring legal interest as the purpose of normative protection referring to the scope of application of the constituent elements.It will lead to the result that the determination of legal interest replaces the interpretation of the constituent elements,which ultimately improperly provides academic support for the analogy interpretation.This kind of methodical concept of legal interest subjects to the thought of legal moralism,which results in serious drawbacks,such as holistic judgment,circular argumentation,unlawful exercise of criminal legislative power,and loss of the spirit of liberalism.Those drawbacks make the concept of legal interest lose its original liberal spirit,and also make the dogmatic of criminal law lose its character of critical spirit.It should abandon the criminalized interpretation function of the purpose of normative protection referring to legal interest,and emphasize its role in finding justifiable reasons instead,that is,it should deny the methodical concept of legal interest and advocate the legal-critical concept of legal interest.