瀆職罪的不法構造與解釋方向

Unlawful Construction and Interpretive Direction for the Crimes of Dereliction of Duty

面對瀆職罪中“重大損失”要件引發的各種問題，刑法學有必要站在瀆職罪本質的高度重新審視其不法構造，進而錨定司法適用的基本方向。客觀的超過要素說、內在的客觀處罰條件說、“中間項”的結果型情狀說等既有方案，沒有擺脫結果犯的固有思維，均難以從根本上消除與“重大損失”要件相關的理論困境。在瀆職犯罪領域，我國刑法采用的獨立型立法模式凸顯了對公務活動公正性這一“中間層法益”的專屬保護，相較於依附型模式更能契合現代社會提前預防系統性風險的治理需要。欲充分發揮該模式所蘊含的優勢，需要將瀆職罪的不法評價重心從人身、財產法益轉移到公務行為公正性法益上，從死傷、財產損失等結果轉移到瀆職行為本身的情節上。當前，司法者完全可以在條文語義可容許的範圍內，遵循以瀆職行為和公務行為公正性為核心的解釋方向，不宜將“造成惡劣社會影響”認定為瀆職罪的入罪標準。

In the face of the various dilemmas arising from the element of“heavy losses”in the Crimes of Dereliction of Duty, it is necessary for Dogmatic of the Criminal Law to stand at the height of the nature of the Crimes of Dereliction of Duty and the mode of legislation, to re-examine its unlawful structure, and thus to establish an interpretive direction of judicial application as well as a direction of reform for the improvement of legislation. The objective punishment condition theory, the internal objective punishment condition theory, and the“intermediate item”consequential situation theory are not free from the inherent thinking of the consequential offence, and it is difficult to eliminate the dilemma associated with the element of“heavy losses”from the root. In the area of Crimes of Dereliction of Duty, the independent legislative model adopted in China’s criminal law highlights the exclusive protection of the“intermediate layer of legal interests”of the impartiality of official activities, which is better suited to the governance needs of modern society for the early prevention of systemic risks than the dependent model. However, in order to give full play to the advantages of this model, it is necessary to shift the center of gravity of the evaluation of the offence of Crimes of Dereliction of Duty from the legal interests of person and property to the legal interests of the impartiality of official activities, and from the results of deaths, injuries and property losses to the circumstances of the acts of dereliction of duty themselves. At present, the judiciary can follow the interpretation direction centred on acts of dereliction of duty and official activities within the scope of the semantics of the provisions, and it should be considered inappropriate for“causing execrable social impact”to be the incrimination standard for the Crimes of Dereliction of Duty.