冒名顶替罪行为方式、犯罪主体的规范诠释与完善

The Normative Interpretation and Perfection of the Behavior Mode and the Subject of the Crime of Substitution

对冒名顶替罪的诠释应遵循立法初衷,以体系性视角展开分析。冒名顶替罪保护的法益为复合法益,其中社会管理秩序为核心内容,公民受教育权为价值内涵,自然人的人格权益为外在表现。盗用和冒用应属包含关系,冒用涵盖了经他人授权而使用的情形。顶替指挤占并取代他人实际取得的高等教育入学资格的行为,因此受害人是否入学不影响犯罪成立。对高等学历教育入学资格的范围应以高等学历教育的教育种类为依据进行认定,不应拘泥于培养模式和授课形式。冒名顶替罪与刑法第280条、第280条之一构成刑法中的“盗窃身份罪”体系,应将三罪理解为吸收关系,以厘清犯罪竞合问题,并加强本罪司法适用率。对顶替者适用刑罚应恪守宽严相济和教育改造理念,对组织、指使者应当从重处罚,对国家工作人员的认定应做限缩解释,即滥用职权实质帮助冒名者完成顶替行为的国家工作人员。

The interpretation of the crime of impersonation should follow the original intention of the legislation and be analyzed from a systematic perspective. The legal interests protected by the crime of impostor are compound legal interests, in which the social management order is the core content, the citizen’s right to education is the value connotation, and the personality rights of natural persons are the external expression. Misappropriation and misappropriation should belong to the inclusion relationship, and misappropriation covers the use with authorization of others. Substitution refers to the act of occupying and replacing the higher education admission qualification actually obtained by others, so whether the victim enters the school does not affect the establishment of the crime. The scope of admission qualification for higher academic education should be determined on the basis of the educational type of higher academic education, and should not be restricted to the training mode and teaching form. The crime of impersonation, together with Article 280 and one of Article 280 of the Criminal Law, constitutes the system of “identity theft” in the Criminal Law. The three crimes should be understood as an absorbing relationship to clarify the problem of concurrence of crimes and strengthen the judicial application rate of this crime. The application of penalty to the replacement should strictly abide by the concept of combining leniency with severity and educational reform, the organization and the emissary should be severely punished, and the identification of the state functionary should be interpreted in a restrictive way, that is, to limit the abuse of power to the state functionary who has made substantial contributions to the replacement.