現象立法的理論應對

現象立法繞過了通過既有理論解決社會問題的可能性，直接將社會現象本身抽象為構成要件，並以現象的整體危害程度和預防必要性為根據設置法定刑，其罪刑設置與處罰的實質根據之間只有臨時的關聯性。以構成要件的反面描述為內容的抽象法益與現象立法的聯姻，導致了刑法的形式化、規範的僵屍化、犯罪的孤島化等後果。從法益內容、法益主體、行為與法益的關聯性和法益保護對刑法的依賴程度四個層面對法益保護原則進行具體化，將寄望於抽象法益的問題轉化為犯罪類型和刑法法益保護從屬性的問題，能破解現象立法面臨的困局，既對其作同時代的實質解釋，限定其成立範圍，又對立法的實用主義訴求保持開放。

Without exhausting the potentials of the existing theories, the phenomenon-describing legislation attempts to solve social problems by new criminal legislation. The elements of crime thereof are abstraction of the phenomenon itself, the penalty set by the general severity and necessity of prevention of the phenomenon. Therefore, the justifying grounds of new-made norm can only be warranted occasionally. Theoreticians often take abstract legal interest, an anti-description of the abstracted phenomenon, as the essential basis of its criminalization, which leads to, among other things, formalized interpretation, rigid application and isolation of the norm. The way out is to reify the principle of legal interest protection in its content, subject, relevance of the act to it and dependence of its protection on criminal law. By transforming the problem of abstract legal interest to problem of crime structure and principle of subsidiarity, the dilemma can be solved. It will not only provide theoretical tool for contemporary substantial interpretation and limitation of phenomenon-describing legislation, but also remain open to legislative pragmatism.