论文部分内容阅读
通过对刑事裁判文书中目的解释的实践运用研究,表明刑法理论和司法实践对待目的解释存在明显的差异。主观目的解释与客观目的解释的选择性运用,须根据司法实践的具体情况而定。目的解释不是决定性的解释方法,各种解释方法之间也不存在位阶性。目的解释既可以用来佐证文义解释和体系解释的结论,也可以用来限定文义解释结论的宽泛性。同样的,体系解释也可以用来佐证目的解释的结论。刑事裁判文书中目的解释的运用法则呈现多元化的特征。在建构目的解释的司法运用规则时,不宜以目的解释作为直接根据认定行为的性质,在刑事裁判文书中应叙明规范目的的识别方法,并通过反向论证来检验目的解释的合理性。
Through the practice and application of the purpose explanation in the instruments of criminal adjudication, it shows that there are obvious differences in the interpretation of criminal law theory and judicial practice. The selective application of subjective purpose explanation and objective purpose explanation shall be based on the specific circumstances of judicial practice. The purpose of interpretation is not a decisive method of interpretation, there is no hierarchy between the various methods of interpretation. The purpose of interpretation can both be used to support the conclusions of the textual interpretation and the system of interpretation can also be used to define the broad interpretation of the conclusions of the text. Similarly, the system explanation can also be used to support the conclusion of the purpose of explanation. The law of purpose of interpretation in the instruments of criminal arbitration shows the characteristics of diversification. In constructing the rules of judicial application of purpose explanation, it is not appropriate to explain the nature of the act of affirmation directly for the purpose of explanation. The method of identification of the purpose of the code should be stated in the instrument of criminal adjudication, and the rationality of purpose explanation should be tested through the reverse argument.