摘要
囿于“捏造”内涵不清,理论与实践对“部分篡改型”行为是否构成虚假诉讼罪形成了“构成说”和“不构成说”的观点聚讼。通过扒梳“捏造”的语义空间以及解读立法原意均无法将“部分篡改型”行为归入虚假诉讼罪的窠臼,且司法解释已经进行事先框定,此时,即便“部分篡改型”行为与“无中生有型”行为具有同样的法益侵害性也不能逾越罪刑法定的藩篱。对“部分篡改型”行为的刑法评价宏观上需要保持刑法与民法的协调度,并顺清民事诉讼法和刑法之间的责任竞合问题。具体实施上,将“部分篡改型”行为认定为诈骗罪经得住法律和理论的双重诘问;基于罪责刑相适应的正义要求和“相同情形相同处理”的刑法坚持,当“部分篡改型”行为同时构成诈骗罪或其他犯罪的,须实行数罪并罚。
Due to the unclear connotation of“fabrication”,the theory and practice have formed the viewpoints of“constitution theory”and“non-constitution theory”on whether“partial tampering”behavior constitutes the crime of false litigation.Neither the interpretation of“fabrication”nor the interpretation of legislative intention can identify“partial tampering”behavior to constitute the crime of false litigation,and the judicial interpretation has been regulated in advance,at this point,even if“partial tampering”behavior and“form out of nothing”behavior has the same infringement of legal interests cannot violate the principle of statutory punishment for a crime.The criminal law evaluation of“partial tampering”behavior needs to keep the coordination degree between criminal law and civil law,and clarify the liability concurrence between civil procedure law and criminal law.In the concrete implementation,the“partial tampering”behavior is identified as the crime of fraud can withstand the double questioning of law and theory;Based on the matching crime and punishment and“the same treatment in the same situation”,when the“partial tampering”behavior constitutes the crime of fraud or other crimes,implementing concurrent punishment for several crimes.
作者
李想
Li Xiang(School of Criminal Justice,Zhongnan University of Economics and Law,Wuhan 430073,China)
出处
《六盘水师范学院学报》
2021年第6期56-64,共9页
Journal of Liupanshui Normal University
基金
2020年度司法部法治建设与法学理论研究科研项目“律师信义义务的理论基础与制度构建研究”(20SFB4052)
2021年度中南财经政法大学中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助“企业合规视野下附条件不起诉制度研究”(202110715)。
关键词
“部分篡改型”行为
虚假诉讼罪
诈骗罪
责任竞合
“partial tampering”behavior
the crime of false litigation
the crime of fraud
liability concurrence
