非法持有“仿真枪”案件的罪刑失衡问题研究——基于北大法宝法律数据库143例个案分析

A Research on Imbalance of Crime and Punishment in Case of Illegal Possession of “Imitation Gun”——Based on 143 Cases Analysis from Peking University’s Fabao Law Database

通过对北大法宝法律数据库中持有"仿真枪"入罪的143例个案进行统计分析,发现此类案件罪刑特征体现为持枪数量对定罪量刑起主导作用,判决结果以宣告缓刑为主、管制刑缺乏适用空间,案件本身的社会危害性、持枪动机、枪支来源等实质性考量因素对于量刑影响有限。最高人民法院分别于2009年、2018年出台的关于涉枪案件的司法解释在定罪量刑的形式与实质判断中存在关系衔接不明的情形,客观上造成主观动机、枪支来源、枪支性能等实质因素无法突破"唯数量"、"唯杀伤力"等形式主义法定量刑幅度的桎梏。最高人民法院2018年涉枪案件司法解释适用标准不明确、法官自由裁量权过大,造成司法实践中持有"仿真枪"入罪个案的量刑失当。实现此类案件罪刑均衡、量刑适当的对策包括:构建行政违法与刑事犯罪衔接分级的双层次阶梯化枪支认定标准,同时参照"醉酒驾驶机动车"的立法规范完善枪支认定模式,构建依据杀伤力进行阶梯化改造的枪支认定分类模型;以形式判断为基准、实质判断为核心,构建形式与实质相统一的法定量刑幅度,以此来保障该类案件的罪责刑相适应。

Based on the statistical analysis of 143 cases of incriminating holding "imitation guns" from Peking University’s Fabao law database, it is found that the characteristics of crime and punishemnt of these cases can be reflected in the following aspects: numbers of gun play a leading role in convictiona and sentencing, the verdict is given priority to suspended sentence, public surveillance lacks application space;some substantial consideration factors such as social harmfulness, gun motivation and gun source have limited impact on sentencing. Judicial interpretation on gun-related cases promulgated by the Supreme People’s Court in 2009 and 2018 respectively has unknown circumstances of cohesion in the form of criterions for conviction and substantial judgment relations, which objectively causes that subjective essence factors such as motivation, gun sources, gun performance are unable to break through the shackles of range of formalism legal sentencing such as "quantity only" and "damage only". Applicable criterion of judicial interpretation on gun-related cases promulgated by the Supreme People’s Court in 2018 was unclear, and judges had too much discretion, which resulted in improper sentencing for crimes of holding "imitation guns" in judicial practice. Finally, the countermeasures to realize the balance of crimes and punishments in such cases include: We should establish the two-level and hierarchical gun identification standards that link administrative violation with criminal offense, and improve the gun identification model by referring to the legislative norms of "drunk driving motor vehicle", so as to establish a hierarchical gun identification model based on lethality. With the formal judgment as the benchmark and the substantive judgment as the core, the legal sentencing range unified in form and substance should be constructed to ensure compatibility of crime responsibility and punishment.