摘要
刑法第205条并未规定构成虚开增值税专用发票罪需要行为人主观上具有特定目的。有学者主张以补足主观构成要件的方式将其解释为"非法定的目的犯",以控制本罪处罚范围。限制解释缺少对虚开行为的社会危害性考察,将"特定目的"认定为"偷逃税款"的理由亦不充分,并且会导致与刑法实然规定的冲突,造成刑法规制的漏洞。我国刑法并不存在超出故意之外的目的,亦不存在目的犯理论适用语境,不能用德日刑法"目的犯理论"解决本罪适用问题。立足我国刑法语境,判断具体虚开行为应否入罪,必须将主观目的作为情节考量的重要因素,全面考察主客观相统一的犯罪构成整体,并依据刑法第13条"但书"规定,将"情节显著轻微危害不大的"虚开行为排除出去。
It is not stipulated in Article 205 of the Criminal Law that the doer should have a specific purpose subjectively when he commits the crime to falsely issue a VAT invoice.Some scholars have advocated that interpreting it as a"non-statutory purpose criminal"in a way that complements the subjective constituent elements in order to control the scope of punishment for this crime.There is the lack of socially harmful investigations of falsehoods in restricted explanations.The reasons for regarding"special purposes"as"tax evasion"are not sufficient,which may lead to conflicts with the actual provisions of criminal law,resulting in loopholes in criminal law.There is no purpose beyond the intentional intention in our country’s criminal law.There is also no theoretical context for the purpose of criminals.The"the theory of the purpose of crime"in the German criminal law and Japanese criminal law cannot be used to interpret this crime.Based on the criminal context in China,the subjective purpose must be regarded as an important factor in the plot consideration when falsely issuing a VAT invoice.The"insignificant and less harmful behavior of issuing invoices"should be excluded according to the provisions of Article 13 of the Criminal Law when a comprehensive investigation of the subjective and objective unity of the crime is taken into consideration.
作者
董飞武
Dong Fei-wu(School of Law,Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093,China)
出处
《税务与经济》
CSSCI
北大核心
2019年第3期74-82,共9页
Taxation and Economy
