重構法條競合理論——基於全面評價原則與禁止重複評價原則的互動機制

法條競合在定罪時適用特殊法就可同時實現全面評價與禁止重複評價原則，前者是第一目標，後者是附隨效果，定罪和量刑均應排除一般法。為實現全面評價原則，應以構成要件為標準對不法（責任）內容作整體判斷，法益同一性是既不充分也不必要條件。想像競合在定罪時適用數條文先完成全面評價，後退至量刑通過從一重處規避重複評價，無法排除輕罪條文對量刑的封鎖。只有包容關係和實質補充關係屬於法條競合，伴隨行為、不可罰的事前和事後行為可由想像競合及我國的牽連犯、數罪不並罰等既有概念消化。受到刑事立法或者犯罪實施階段影響，不能全面評價一般法的不法（責任）時，特殊法失去優先根據，應適用想像競合。基於裁判與評價規範的視角，《刑法》中''另有規定的''應當指不法（責任）與法定刑均能評價一般法的特殊法。封鎖特權原理優先但獨立於法條競合原理，因其內容的開放與專享性，應對其審慎解釋。作為''一罪一罰''的法條競合及其原理可以充分揭示競合論的分析範式和三分結構。

In cases of concurrence of legal provisions, applying the special law in conviction satisfies both the principle of comprehensive evaluation and the prohibition against double evaluation. The former is the primary go, and the latter is a subsidiary effect; the general law should be excluded in both conviction and sentencing. Identity of legal interests is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for comprehensive evaluation, which should instead be based on an overall judgment of illegality via constitutive requirements. Imaginative concurrence adopts multiple provisions for full evaluation before imposing the heavier punishment to avoid duplication. However, this mechanism cannot prevent the lighter offense provision from blocking sentencing; attendant acts, unpunishable prior or subsequent conduct can be addr essed through existing concepts such as imaginative concurrence, as well as the Chinese doctrines of implicated of fenses and the noncumulative punishment of multiplecrimes. Only inclusive and substantive supplementary relations constitute concurrence of legal provisions. When the special law cannot fully evaluate the general law, due to the influence of criminal legislation or the stage of the crime's commission, imaginative concurrence applies. The“otherwise provided”clause refers to special laws that cover both illegality and statutory punishment of the general law. The principle of blocking privilege takes precedence but is independent of the doctrine of concurrence of legal provisions, which shall be interpreted cautiously due to its open and exclusive nature. Concurrence of legal provisions reveals the tripartite structure and analytical paradigm of concurrence theory.