法益与犯罪客体的体系性比较

An Systematic Comparison between Legal Interest and Criminal Object

法益和犯罪客体在各自的理论与规范体系中具有重要地位。法益概念具有较大的流变性,犯罪客体概念相对稳定。法益与犯罪客体的内容具有不确定性与包容性。在德日等大陆法系国家刑法理论中,侵犯法益是犯罪的本质特征,与犯罪属于同等地位的概念。在我国传统刑法理论中犯罪客体是犯罪构成要件之一,从特定方面揭示犯罪的本质特征。学界对法益机能之类型和范畴均存在较大分歧,但对犯罪客体的某些机能存在共识。犯罪客体要件作为犯罪构成要件之一,不能驱逐出平面犯罪构成要件体系。法益与犯罪客体不能相互替代。法益理论中国化的关键,在于如何有效化解本土化过程中遇到的问题,切忌简单的理论移植。

Legal interest and criminal object play an important role in their respective theoretical and normative systems.The concept of legal interest has great rheology,and the concept of criminal object is relatively stable.The content of legal interest and criminal object is uncertain and inclusive.In the criminal law theory of civil law countries such as Germany and Japan,infringement of legal interest is the essential characteristic of crime and belongs to the same concept as crime.In China’s traditional criminal law theory,the criminal object is one of the constitutive elements of crime,revealing the essential characteristics of crime from specific aspects.There are great differences in the types and categories of the legal benefit function,but there is consensus on some functions of the criminal object.As one of the constitutive elements of a crime,criminal object cannot be excluded from the system of constitutive elements of a planar crime.Legal interest and criminal object cannot replace each other.The key to the Sinicization of the theory of legal interest lies in how to effectively resolve the problems encountered in the process of localization and we should avoid simple theoretical transplantation.