从实质解释论反思方舟子遇袭案

Reflections on Fang Attack Case from Substantive Interpretation Theory

法院判处方舟子遇袭案的被告人寻衅滋事罪而不是故意伤害罪(未遂),符合实质解释论的解释路径和要求,应当对寻衅滋事罪中的"随意"进行扩大解释,在公共场所故意伤害他人造成轻伤或轻微伤的,构成寻衅滋事罪和故意伤害罪的想象竞合,以寻衅滋事罪定罪处罚。对被害人造成轻微伤的行为定性为寻衅滋事罪虽然可能使其面临"口袋罪"的疑问,但它能更好地维护社会秩序、保障人民的自由和权利,符合罪刑法定主义原则。

That the defendants in Fang attack case were sentenced to crime of creating disturbances not crime of intentional injury（ not accomplished）is in line with the explaining path and requirements of substantive interpretation theory. The explanation of ＂random＂ in crime of creating disturbances should be expanded. Intentionally causing harm to others in minor or slight injury in public places can constitute the imaginative joinder of offenses of crime of creating disturbances and crime of intentional injury, and be convicted and punished as crime of creating disturbances. Although this may be questioned as ＂pocket crime＂, it can better maintain social order and protect people/ s freedom and rights, in line with the principles of legality.