【作者】 陈琳；

【导师】 黄奇中； 吴美满；

【作者基本信息】 华侨大学 ， 法律硕士（专业学位）， 2016， 硕士

【摘要】 刑事司法实务离不开刑法解释,刑法正确适用的前提是对刑法进行正确的解释。尤其在新型犯罪层出不穷,传统犯罪手段革新的当下,当法律规定不够明确时,刑事司法者在刑事司法实务中如何适用法律,如何解释法律——是要考虑刑事司法惩罚犯罪的使命,以实质解释的立场,考虑立法原意,以行为的社会危害性为判断标准,将刑法未规定的行为入罪,还是要严格依据法无明文规定不为罪的原则为当事人出罪?司法者在司法实务中对法律条文的解释采取形式解释立场还是实质解释立场,以及采不同的立场对案件有无影响、影响多大,采取哪种立场更为合理的疑惑促成了本文的形成。本文通过发放调查问卷的方式以Q市两级法院刑事审判工作一线的11个基层法院18个刑事审判庭及1个中级法院的4个涉刑事审判庭的173名审判员、助理审判员为样本,通过问卷调查尤其是13个案例的问答对其所持观点的分析进行比较,从中发现他们对刑法解释所持立场是形式解释立场还是实质解释立场以及原因。经过对问卷的分析整理发现,Q市两级法院的一线审判人员在实际工作中对形式解释和实质解释的运用是模糊的,即他们没有明确的对二者进行区分,相反,很大一部分法官是根据具体案件的具体情况运用,有的案件采形式解释立场,有的案件采实质解释立场,有的甚至是二者并用——定罪采形式主义,量刑采实质主义。然而,在采用不同的解释立场的背后,他们都有各自的理由,其中包含了不同解释立场的优劣。文章通过对这些优劣的进一步分析,考虑制度性因素,和法官能力的参差不同,得出了目前更适合我国司法现状的是形式解释立场的结论。更多还原

【Abstract】 The practice of the criminal justice can’t be separated from the interpretation of criminal law.In order to applying the criminal law correctly,the judge should explain the criminal law correctly.Especially in the background of new type of crime are springing up and the traditional criminal methods are renovating,but the criminal law has no such regulations or the words of rules are ambiguous.the criminal judges how to explain the criminal law —— to insist on protecting the legal interest and punishing the actions by substantial interpretation initiatively in considering of the mission of punishment,or strictly according to the principles of ”nullum crimen sine lege” to pronounce not guilty? The judges are explaining the criminal law in theory of formal interpretation or in the theory of substantial interpretation,and what influences would be brought to the cases becomes the motivation to write this paper,In order to have a relatively accurate empirical analysis,this paper used the method of issuing questionnaires to 173 criminal judges in City Q’s two levels court,who works at 18 criminal adjudication tribunal between 11 grass-root court and 4 criminal adjudication tribunal in Intermediate Court,as sample.To found out which stand they pointed and why they chose it from comparing and analyzing their answers in the questionnaires especially the points in the 13 cases.The conclusions coming up with analyzing,these judges don’t have a clearly boundaries in using the theory of formal interpretation or in the theory of substantial interpretation.On the contrary,most of them always choosing different methods in particular cases according to the actual circumstances.Sometimes they stand the formal interpretation,sometimes they stand the substantial interpretation.Even both applying in one case — — formal interpretation in conviction,but substantial interpretation in sentencing.However,they have their own different reasons to choose different stands,which contains good and bad.After further analyze the goods and bad,considering the institutional Influencing factors and different capabilities,this paper come to the conclusion that the theory of formal interpretation is the suitable and best way in current situation of judicature.更多还原