網(wǎng)絡(luò)假冒注冊商標犯罪中被告人“刷單”辯解的證明模式和證明標準——以第87號指導案例及相關(guān)案例為分析對象
發(fā)布時間：2018-09-07 11:37
【摘要】：針對網(wǎng)絡(luò)假冒注冊商標犯罪中被告人提出的"刷單"辯解,司法實踐中存在不同的理解和做法。87號指導案例表達了"被告人無證據(jù)證實其‘刷單’辯解時不予采納"的裁判要旨,另有司法機關(guān)依據(jù)被告人提供的某一證據(jù)(線索)甚至是被告人就"刷單"過程的說明而采納了"刷單"辯解。從學理上來看,被告人"刷單"辯解是對指控犯罪數(shù)額的消極抗辯而非"幽靈抗辯",被告人于理論上不應(yīng)對這一辯解承擔證明責任。然而,這一理論論斷受制于"網(wǎng)絡(luò)犯罪數(shù)額認定困境"、"被告人了解刷單情況之常情"以及"法官對電商領(lǐng)域刷單狀況的確信度差異"等現(xiàn)實因素,在司法實踐中難以達到其理想狀態(tài)。從刑事政策上進行把握,司法實踐中的理性證明模式應(yīng)當是辯方自由證明模式以及"合情確信"標準,即被告人通過提供某一證據(jù)(線索)或口頭說明"刷單"過程都可以影響法官的內(nèi)心確信,且這種內(nèi)心確信無須達到完全客觀的保證,而僅需在情理上具有可接受性即可。
[Abstract]:In response to the defense of the defendant in the crime of counterfeiting a registered trademark on the Internet, There are different understandings and practices in judicial practice. The guiding case No. 87 expresses the main thrust of the decision that "the defendant does not have evidence to prove that his' brush 'excuse is not to be taken." Another judicial authority based on a certain evidence (clue) provided by the defendant or even the defendant's explanation of the process of "brushing" the defense of "brushing". From the theoretical point of view, the defense of the defendant's "brushing" is a negative defense against the amount of the alleged crime rather than a "phantom defense", and the defendant should not bear the burden of proof for this plea in theory. However, this theory is restricted by such realistic factors as "the difficulty of determining the amount of cybercrime", "the common sense of the defendant's understanding of the situation of the order brushing" and "the difference of the judges' confidence in the status of the order brushing in the field of e-commerce". It is difficult to reach its ideal state in judicial practice. From the view of criminal policy, the mode of rational proof in judicial practice should be the model of defense free proof and the standard of "reasonable conviction". That is, the defendant can influence the judge's inner conviction by providing a certain evidence (clue) or oral explanation of the "brushing" process, and this inner conviction does not need to achieve complete objective assurance, but only needs to be reasonably acceptable.
【作者單位】： 大連理工大學法律系;
【基金】：作者主持的2015年度遼寧省社科規(guī)劃基金青年項目“網(wǎng)絡(luò)黑社會犯罪刑法治理研究”(項目編號:L15CFX007)的階段性研究成果
【分類號】：D925.2
[Abstract]:In response to the defense of the defendant in the crime of counterfeiting a registered trademark on the Internet, There are different understandings and practices in judicial practice. The guiding case No. 87 expresses the main thrust of the decision that "the defendant does not have evidence to prove that his' brush 'excuse is not to be taken." Another judicial authority based on a certain evidence (clue) provided by the defendant or even the defendant's explanation of the process of "brushing" the defense of "brushing". From the theoretical point of view, the defense of the defendant's "brushing" is a negative defense against the amount of the alleged crime rather than a "phantom defense", and the defendant should not bear the burden of proof for this plea in theory. However, this theory is restricted by such realistic factors as "the difficulty of determining the amount of cybercrime", "the common sense of the defendant's understanding of the situation of the order brushing" and "the difference of the judges' confidence in the status of the order brushing in the field of e-commerce". It is difficult to reach its ideal state in judicial practice. From the view of criminal policy, the mode of rational proof in judicial practice should be the model of defense free proof and the standard of "reasonable conviction". That is, the defendant can influence the judge's inner conviction by providing a certain evidence (clue) or oral explanation of the "brushing" process, and this inner conviction does not need to achieve complete objective assurance, but only needs to be reasonably acceptable.
【作者單位】： 大連理工大學法律系;
【基金】：作者主持的2015年度遼寧省社科規(guī)劃基金青年項目“網(wǎng)絡(luò)黑社會犯罪刑法治理研究”(項目編號:L15CFX007)的階段性研究成果
【分類號】：D925.2
【相似文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條
1 王巍;;侵犯商標專用權(quán)犯罪中“假冒注冊商標鑒定”及“價格鑒定”相關(guān)問題淺析[J];法制與社會;2013年09期
2 童海超;;知識產(chǎn)權(quán)刑事附帶民事訴訟的刑民之別——熊四傳假冒注冊商標罪案評析[J];科技與法律;2012年02期
3 梁建明;;辦理利用網(wǎng)購平臺售假案件中的幾點問題[J];中國檢察官;2013年05期
4 ;基層快訊[J];檢察風云;2014年14期
相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前10條
1 記者 章寧旦 通訊員 王創(chuàng)輝 黎謝榮;東莞假冒注冊商標犯罪突出[N];法制日報;2014年
2 記者 谷萍 通訊員 查洪南 雙劍 萬軍;依法保護注冊商標贏得外商贊譽[N];檢察日報;2010年
3 通訊員 曲劍;廣東批捕一起銷售假冒注冊商標商品案[N];檢察日報;2011年
4 記者 林中明 通訊員 金紅 龔樹楚;上海：侵犯知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案呈五大特點[N];檢察日報;2011年
5 記者 林中明 通訊員 段麗卿;幾分鐘完成涉案物品入庫手續(xù)[N];檢察日報;2014年
6 記者 李明耀 通訊員 王s，
本文編號：2228151
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/susongfa/2228151.html
