刑法“创造性解释”的司法现状与控制路径

The Judicial status quo and Control Path of “Creative interpretation” of Criminal Law

在处理具体案件时回应法治的要求、坚守罪刑法定原则,是理论上和实务中无法回避的重大问题。近年来,随着疑难、复杂案件以及与信息网络有关的侵犯财产等新类型案件的增多,基于司法功能主义的考虑,软性地甚至创造性地解释刑法的现象不断出现。这种思考方法顾及了国民视角的处罚必要性,存在一定的合理性。但是,其中的少数解释属于应当予以禁止的类推解释。为此,必须对刑法“创造性解释”进行必要的限制,不能仅仅从处罚必要性出发进行实质解释,需要承认立法者“意图性的法律空白”。要对刑法“创造性解释”进行合理化控制,首先,要考虑刑法解释方法的制约,肯定罪刑法定原则对于刑法领域“法官造法”具有根本性的制约作用;其次,要考虑类案中展示出来的“普遍的主流观点”的合理性;最后,刑法“创造性解释”要接受体系性的刑法教义学的指导,认真研判其所提供的论证模式。在穷尽所有的解释方法后仍然无法定罪的,不能以“创造性解释”之名行类推解释之实,而只能期待立法者增设新罪名。

Responding to the requirements of the rule of law and adhering to the principle of legality of crime and punishment in dealing with specific cases is an important issue that can not be avoided in theory and practice.In recent years,with the increase of new types of cases such as difficult,complex cases and property infringement related to the information network,based on the consideration of judicial functionalism,the phenomenon of“soft”and even creative interpretation of criminal law continues to appear.This way of thinking,taking into account the necessity of punishment from the national perspective,there is a certain degree of rationality.However,some interpretations belong to analogical interpretations that should be prohibited.Excessively flexible or flexible interpretation may become a great obstacle to the implementation of the principle of legality of crime and punishment.For this reason,it is necessary to restrict the flexible interpretation of criminal law,not only from the perspective of the necessity of punishment,but also to recognize the“intentional legal blank”of legislators.In order to rationalize and control the flexible interpretation of criminal law,we must first consider the restriction of the interpretation method of criminal law;secondly,we should consider the rationality of the“universal mainstream view”shown in the class cases,and fully reason for the change of the interpretation of“class cases”;finally,the flexible interpretation of criminal law should be restricted by the systematic doctrine of criminal law,and carefully study and judge the demonstration model it provides.Those who are unable to find suitable“class cases”,cannot judge illegality according to the doctrine of criminal law,and still cannot be convicted after exhaustion of all interpretation methods,can not carry out analogical interpretation in the name of flexible interpretation,but can only expect legislators to add new crimes.