刑事裁判文書中目的解釋的實踐運用

The Practice Application of Objective Interpretation in Criminal Judgments

通過對刑事裁判文書中目的解釋的實踐運用研究，表明刑法理論和司法實踐對待目的解釋存在明顯的差異。主觀目的解釋與客觀目的解釋的選擇性運用，須根據司法實踐的具體情況而定。目的解釋不是決定性的解釋方法，各種解釋方法之間也不存在位階性。目的解釋既可以用來佐證文義解釋和體系解釋的結論，也可以用來限定文義解釋結論的寬泛性。同樣的，體系解釋也可以用來佐證目的解釋的結論。刑事裁判文書中目的解釋的運用法則呈現多元化的特徵。在建構目的解釋的司法運用規則時，不宜以目的解釋作為直接根據認定行為的性質，在刑事裁判文書中應敘明規範目的的識別方法，並通過反向論證來檢驗目的解釋的合理性。

The criminal judgments suggests that obvious differences exist between criminal law theory and judicial practice. The use of subjective interpretation and objective interpretation depends on the specific situation of the judicial practice. The objective interpretation isn't the definitive interpretation methods. Interpretation methods between rates of sex don't exist. Objective interpretation can be used to support system of direct interpretation and explanation to the conclusion to restrict the broadness of direct interpretation conclusions. Similarly, the systematic interpretation can also be used to support objective interpretation conclusions. The use of the interpretations in judgment has diversified characteristics. In the process of constructing the judiciary rule of objective interpretation, it is unfavorable to explain as directly according to the nature of the decision behavior in criminal judgment. The criminal judgment should state identification method of objective interpretation, and through a reverse proof to check the conclusion of the objective interpretation.