程序出罪的內涵重塑與判斷標準

Reshaping the Connotation and Criteria for Procedural Non-Prosecution

隨著犯罪治理多元化進程的加快；程序出罪的重要性日益凸顯。如何在實體入罪的同時通過程序出罪實現犯罪治理多元化成為理論研究的重點課題。既有研究未能妥善解決程序出罪的概念共識問題；導致程序出罪的理論基礎不清、適用範圍不明、體系協調性不足。對此；應通過逐級分析“不入罪”與“出罪”；以及“實體出罪”與“程序出罪”的理念差異；凸顯程序出罪的獨立性。程序出罪的本質屬性表現為因裁量性程序終止行為使行為人在法律意義上無罪。因存在犯罪阻卻事由、法益恢復事由、證據不足、欠缺訴訟條件導致的法定性程序終止因不具有個案利益衡量特性；與程序出罪存在本質差異。在此基礎上；應進一步明確程序出罪的判斷標準；處理好不同屬性利益之間的衡量問題；即制定不同出罪情節的疊加適用標準；以及出罪與入罪情節之間的衝突衡量標準。

As the criminal legislative process accelerates, the importance of procedural nonprosecution becomes increasingly prominent. How to achieve diversified crime governance through procedural non-prosecution while maintaining substantive criminalization has become a key research topic. Existing studies have failed to adequately address the conceptual consensus issue of what is procedural nonprosecution, leading to unclear theoretical foundations, ambiguous scope of application, and insufficient systemic coordination. In response to this, it is necessary to analyze the conceptual differences between“non-prosecution”and“procedural non-prosecution”as well as between“substantive non-prosecution”and“procedural non-prosecution”in a hierarchical manner to highlight the independence of procedural non-prosecution. The essential attribute of procedural non-prosecution manifests as the termination of legal proceedings due to discretionary procedural acts, resulting in the defendant being legally innocent. This is fundamentally different from substantive non-prosecution, which arises from reasons such as crime prevention, restoration of legal interests, insufficient evidence, or lack of procedural prerequisites, as these lack the characteristic of individual interest assessment associated with procedural non-prosecution. Building upon this foundation, it is important to further clarify the criteria for determining procedural nonprosecution and to address the issue of balancing different interests. This involves establishing standards for the cumulative application of different non-prosecution circumstances and for assessing conflicts between non-prosecution and prosecution circumstances.