差异化判决之定罪理由的类案考察——以“盗窃车牌勒索赎金类案件”为例

On the Reasons for Conviction in Differentiated Judgments: A Case Study of the Classified Crime of Stealing License Plate for Ransom

在刑事司法中,类似案件被以不同罪名加以处罚的现象并不鲜见。然而,如果我们仅凭直觉就将此现象认定为"同案异判",很可能是一种误判。通过对盗窃车牌勒索赎金类案件大量裁判文书的考察分析,我们发现,差异化判决并非全然是司法失误或司法不公的表现,而是由犯罪形态的复杂性所导致的。也就是说,同类案件不同定罪,存在合理与不合理之分。"同案异判"只能指称那些不合理的差异化判决,而对于合理的差异化判决,则不能认为其违反法制统一性原则和平等适用原则。当然,合理的差异化判决需要充分的裁判理由加以支撑,尤其是在类似盗窃车牌勒索赎金这样的案件中,行为可能触犯数个罪名,定罪理由的阐释尤其具有重要意义。定罪说理不仅可以正当化个案的定罪,而且可以为相似案件的差异化判决提供合理性的说明。

In criminal procedure, it is not uncommon for similar cases to be punished on different charges. However, if we just rely on intuition to classify this phenomenon as "different judgments in the same case", it is likely to be a miscarriage of justice. Through the investigation and analysis of a large number of judicial documents in the cases of vehicle license plate theft and ransom extortion, we can find that the differential judgment is not entirely a manifestation of judicial errors or injustice, but may be caused by the complexity of criminal forms. That is to say, there are reasonable and unreasonable differences between convictions in similar cases. "Different judgments in the same case" can only refer to unreasonable differentiated judgments, but for reasonable differentiated judgments, it can not be considered to violate the principle of legal unity and the principle of equal application. Of course, reasonable differentiated judgments need sufficient justification to support, especially in cases such as theft of license plate for ransom, the behavior may violate several charges, the explanation of conviction reasons is particularly important. The conviction reason can not only justify the conviction of a case, but also provide a reasonable explanation for the differentiated judgments of similar cases.