但書規定的司法功能考察及重述

Investigation and Redefinition of the Function of the Proviso in Jurisdiction

"我國《刑法》第13條的但書規定是刑法謙抑性的立法宣示，刑法學界對于其司法功能一直存在""出罪功能""與""入罪限制功能""的爭論。通過考察裁判文書可見，司法實踐將但書規定作為總括性的出罪標準，阻礙了其他出罪事由的正常運用。主張但書規定具有""入罪限制功能""的觀點具有正確的犯罪判斷觀念和定罪方法論，更為可取。在""出罪標準說""與""入罪限制說""的對立圖式下，但書規定的獨立意義被犯罪構成理論遮蔽，以致產生虛置甚至取消但書規定的傾向。應當克服這一對立圖式的局限性，以但書規定為本位，全面考察但書規定實際發揮的司法功能。《刑法》第13條的但書規定在""入罪限制功能""之外還具有發展出罪事由的""接應功能""，刑法理論及司法實踐可以妥善利用這一功能發展規范性、開放性、多元化的出罪事由體系。"

"The proviso in Article 13 of the Criminal Law of China is a legislative declaration of the modesty of criminal law, and there has been a theoretical debate regarding its function in jurisdiction: ""Decriminalization"" or ""Limiting Criminalization"".It can be seen from the judicial decisions that the judicial practice processes the proviso as a general standard of decriminalization, which hinders the normal application of other causes of incrimination. The viewpoint that the proviso has the function of ""limiting criminalization"" has the correct notion of crime identification and conviction methodology, which is preferable. Under the antagonistic pattern between the theory of ""Decriminalization Standard"" and the theory of ""Limiting Criminalization"", the independent significance of the proviso is obscured by the constitution theory of crime, which gives rise to the tendency to disregard or even abolish the proviso. It is necessary to overcome the shortage of this opposing schema, to take the proviso as the basis, and to comprehensively examine the actual judicial function played by the proviso. The proviso of Article 13 of the Criminal Law has the ""connecting function"" of extending the causes of decriminalization in addition to the function of ""limiting criminalization"".Criminal law theory and judicial practice can make proper use of this function to develop a normative, open and diversified system of causes of decriminalization."