贿赂犯罪中“感情投资”与“人情往来”的教义学形塑

Dogmatic Interpretation of “Investment for Relationship” and “Socializing” in Bribery Crimes

在“感情投资”的场合认定贿赂犯罪,不以确定影响职权行使为必要,而是只要可能影响职权行使即可。这并没有消解财物与职权行使之间的对价关系(即作为抽象危险犯的收受礼金罪)而是在一定程度上松动,从而将处罚范围由实害犯扩展到具体危险犯。那种在解释论上虚化“可能影响职权行使”的观点,违反了分权体制。证明“可能影响职权行使”的关键,在于送礼者是否明确提出具体请托事项,而不能仅仅根据权属关系和期待关照的内心意图来推定。否则,就是按照尚未立法的“收受礼金罪”来类推入罪。法教义学上“人情往来”,是一种收紧处罚范围的出罪事由,其既不严格要求时间上的往来同步化,也不要求价值上的往来等价化,但至少要存在一种基于人情世故的“往来预期”。这种“往来预期”是个体之间通过礼金互换实现情感交流和长久维系的社交规范。只有基于人身的平等性和对等性而与职务无关,才能被认定为具有“往来预期”的事项。由于从整体和长期来看,往来双方在礼金上的收支都是平衡的,因此不能将该礼金视作职务行为的对价,由此排除贿赂犯罪的构成要件。

Impact on authority execution is not a necessary element of bribery crimes in the situation that investment is for relationship,having possibility to effect on authority execution is enough.The consideration relationship between paying property and exercising power is not destroyed by the solution(i.e.regarding accepting gifts crimes as Abstrakt Gefhrlichkeitsdelikt),it just have a certain degree of looseness,as a result,punishment boundaries are expanded from Verletzungsdelikte to Konkrete Gefhrlichkeitsdelikt.The viewpoints that diminishing status of element‘having possibility to effect on authority execution’via Dogmatik violates decentralization regime.What is a key method to demonstration of‘having possibility to effect on authority execution’is not presumption based on ownership(of property given)and belief(in accomplishing anticipation of bias),but the issue is clearly expressed by the briber.Otherwise,what defendant carried out is accepting gifts crimes that are not put into legislation,and the measure it takes is analogy(Analogie).‘Socializing’in Dogmatik is one type of justification or excuse,which limits on range punishments are applies to.Based on its requirements,giving property and receiving returns don’t have to occur at the same time strictly,and their value inequality is still acceptable.However,‘anticipation returns’ in secular sense(consist with secular purpose)are requested at least.The‘anticipation returns’ is a social norm that emotional contacts and long-term maintenance relationships are achieved by gifts exchange between individuals.The only basis is equality of agencies who participate in interpersonal relationship constrained by social customs,nothing to do with authority and power,otherwise verdict will be no‘anticipation returns.’Moreover,in the long run,individuals participated in exchange of gifts make both ends meet generally,therefore we cannot regard gifts as considerations to authority execution,afterwards,elements of bribery crimes are eliminated.