职务公正性作为受贿罪保护法益的再提倡——以规范目的与保护法益相分离为视角

The Re-Advocacy of Positional Fairness as the Protected Interest of the Crime of Accepting Bribes——From the Perspective of Separating Regulatory Purposes and Protected Interests

当前学界关于受贿罪保护法益的讨论,基本是立足于个人法益和集体法益的角度,围绕职务行为可收买性说与职务行为公正性说展开。我国普通受贿罪的"为他人谋取利益"要件发生了从无到有,再到司法解释将其逐步虚化的演变。与之相对,为了发挥法益对构成要件的解释功能,一些学者立足于实定法,力图从构成要件中发现受贿罪的保护法益,代表性的法益学说经历了廉洁性说到职务行为不可收买性说,再到公职不可谋私利说的发展。由于不可收买性说与利用影响力受贿罪、斡旋受贿罪之间存在无法弥合的罅隙,更能解读受贿罪全部行为类型的公职不可谋私利性说,在学界占据了上风。集体法益的公职不可谋私利性说是根据受贿罪构成要件推导而来,可以说,规范是什么,集体法益便保护什么。集体法益静态、封闭的特征使其无法发挥对动态构成要件的解释机能,而且由于内容抽象,也不能为受贿罪立法提供正当性根据,仅仅起着犯罪分类的作用。因此,应取消集体法益概念,将受贿罪保护法益理解为职务行为的公正性。这样,职务行为公正性能为受贿罪的立法正当性以及违法性提供根据,规范目的能解释普通受贿罪构成要件由紧到松的缘由,并且为犯罪分类提供标准。此外,职务行为公正性说,也能回应国内学者的质疑,因为大多渎职罪的渎职行为与普通受贿罪的“为他人谋取利益”行为并不一致,其并非普通受贿罪对应的实害犯。

The current academic discussion on the interests of the crime of accepting bribes is based on the individual legal interests and collective legal interests,and revolves around the theory of the buyability of duty acts and the theory of the fairness of duty acts.In our country,the elements of“seeking benefits for others”of the ordinary crime of accepting bribes have evolved from scratch to existence,and then to be gradually blurred by judicial interpretation.In contrast,in order to exert the explanatory function of the protected interest on the constitutive elements,some scholars,based on the established law,try to discover the protected interest of the crime of accepting bribes from the constitutive elements.The representative theories of legal interest has experienced the development of integrity,from the unbribability of official behavior to the non-selfish interests of public officials.Due to the irreconcilable gap that cannot be bribed between the theory of incorruptibility and the crime of accepting bribes by influence and mediation,the theory of incorruptibility of public office,which can better interpret all types of the crime of accepting bribes,has gained the upper hand in academic circles.According to the constitution of the crime of accepting bribes,the collective legal interests can protect what the norm is.The static and closed characteristics of collective legal interests make it unable to play the function of explaining the dynamic elements,and because of the abstract content,it can not provide a legitimate basis for the legislation of the crime of accepting bribes,but only plays the role of crime classification.Therefore,the concept of collective legal interests should be abolished,and the interests of the crime of accepting bribes protection law should be understood as the fairness of duty acts.In this way,the impartiality of duty acts can provide the basis for the legislative legitimacy and illegality of the crime of accepting bribes,and the normative purpose can explain the reason why the constituent elements of the ordinary crime of accepting bribes are tight to loose,and provide the standard for the classification of crime.In addition,the theory of fairness of duty acts can also respond to the doubts of domestic scholars,because most of the dereliction of duty crimes are not consistent with the ordinary crime of accepting bribes of“seeking benefits for others”behavior,which is not the actual harm corresponding to the ordinary crime of accepting bribes.