西南石油大学学报(社会科学版) ›› 2025, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (1): 64-79.

• 政治与法律 • 上一篇    下一篇

涉违法性认识案件的阶层处理思路

孙继科1,2   

  1. 1. 郑州航空工业管理学院文法学院, 河南 郑州 450046;
    2. 郑州大学法学院, 河南 郑州 450001
  • 发布日期:2025-01-25
  • 作者简介:孙继科,郑州航空工业管理学院文法学院讲师,郑州大学法学院博士后,研究方向:中国刑法学。
  • 基金资助:
    司法部法治建设与法学理论研究课题“大数据背景下我国法治反腐的运行机制研究”(20SFB4037);河南省高校人文社会科学研究一般项目“轻罪的入罪标准与出罪机制研究”(2025-ZZJH-007)。

The Hierarchical Approach to Cases Involving Illegality Cognition

Sun Jike1,2   

  1. 1. School of Humanities and Law, Zhengzhou University of Aeronautics, Zhengzhou Henan, 450046, China;
    2. School of Law, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou Henan, 450001, China
  • Published:2025-01-25

摘要: 在立法缺失的背景下,应当构建涉违法性认识案件的阶层处理思路。对于行为人提出的违法性认识错误的抗辩,应当沿着“事实判断—规范判断—分层细化判断”的路径逐次展开。应当综合案件的主客观事实,运用推论的方法确认是否具有违法性认识。对于事实上能确认违法性认识存在的,应直接确认为无效抗辩。在存在错误的场合,违法性认识错误可以作为酌定量刑情节与特殊场合下的出罪事由。欠缺违法性认识可能性时应当认定为无罪过事件,法官可以通过援引意外事件条款或者期待不可能、对法律的忠诚出罪。违法性认识可能性在认定时应区分明显地带与模糊地带。明显地带可以运用刑事推定中的基础事实进行判断,而模糊地带则需要对知法的预见性、知法的障碍性、行为合法信赖的基础逐次展开精细化审查。

关键词: 违法性认识错误, 刑事推论, 违法性认识可能性, 刑事推定, 出罪

Abstract: In the absence of relevant legislation, it is necessary to establish a hierarchical approach to cases involving illegality cognition. In the case of defense of "mistake of illegality cognition" raised by the perpetrator, it is necessary to take a step-by-step approach of "fact judgment-normative judgment-hierarchical and detailed judgment". Firstly, the subjective and objective facts of the case should be comprehensively analyzed using deductive reasoning to confirm whether there is illegality cognition. If it can be confirmed, it should be directly determined as an invalid defense. In cases where there is a mistake, the mistake of illegality cognition can be used as a discretionary sentencing circumstance and a reason for exoneration in special circumstances. When there is no possibility of illegality cognition, it should be recognized as an incident of innocence, and the judge can exonerate by invoking the provision of unforeseen events or anticipated impossibility, or by being loyal to the law. Finally, when determining the possibility of illegality cognition, it is necessary to distinguish between clear possibility and ambiguous possibility. When there is clear possibility, basic facts in criminal presumption can be used for judgment, while when there is ambiguous possibility, a detailed examination of the predictability of knowledge of the law, obstacles to knowledge of the law, and the basis for confirming the legality of the behavior is required.

Key words: mistake of illegality cognition, criminal inference, possibility of illegality cognition, criminal presumption, exoneration

中图分类号: