食品攙偽或假冒的抽象危險犯辯證

An Argumentation on the Offender of Abstract Danger of Adulterated or Counterfeited Food

The primary task of the court is to apply laws accurately and properly. Surely there is no need for the court to satisfy the public opinion, but the courthave to deal with those high-profile food safety cases with muchmore caution. The reasoning part of legal applicationin particular must be flawless and convincing, otherwise it would be hard for the judicial branch to play a role in balancing social interests or might even raisebad criticism. Judges are not entertainers; their task is not to please the publicbut to guard the boundary of Criminal Code, which meansthat the judge are supposed to make accurate and proper decisions instead of living in their own ivory tower. Fortunately, the 18th Resolution of Criminal Divisions Conference of Supreme Court in 2016 clarified that the offense described in the article 49 section 1 of Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation is an Offender of Abstract Danger, and the legislative purpose of that article is to protect the legal interests such as the health of citizens and the rights of consumers. On one hand, this resolution of Supreme Court guards the bottom line of Criminal Code successfully and responses to the legislative purposes faithfully; on the other hand, it also shows anaccurate result of the application of the Act.