【摘要】：我國1979年刑法規(guī)定了投機倒把罪，在這個條文中也將非法經(jīng)營行為涵蓋進來，后來社會發(fā)展無需再繼續(xù)設(shè)置投機倒把罪，它進而演變出一個新的罪名，這就是非法經(jīng)營罪。該罪在罪狀的具體設(shè)置上仍保留了“其他嚴重擾亂市場秩序”的彈性規(guī)定，規(guī)定的空間較大，存在潛在的不確定性。在司法實踐中，一般是通過一系列的司法解釋來限制彈性空間，面對疑難復(fù)雜非法經(jīng)營行為時，通過不斷出臺司法解釋來進行判斷，以此保障正確適用刑法定罪量刑，這樣勢必會放大非法經(jīng)營罪的適用范圍，像一個永遠也裝不滿的口袋一樣越裝越大，隨之而來的法律困惑也就越來越多。不管行為人的經(jīng)營是否合法，或者其行為方式是否被法律允許，在沒有相應(yīng)刑法具體規(guī)定的情形下，就可能被司法機關(guān)認定為非法經(jīng)營罪，進而受到刑法的制裁。所以說，該罪呈現(xiàn)出“口袋化”特征，模糊了行政違法行為和犯罪之間的界限，不符合我國市場經(jīng)濟的價值取向，并且導(dǎo)致了權(quán)力的濫用。然而，法律是靈活的，我們必須要分清什么是行政違法，什么是刑事違法，即到底應(yīng)受到行政還是刑法的處罰，必須界定清楚，避免各種投機取巧現(xiàn)象的發(fā)生。因此，無論是在理論上還是實踐中，如何正確理解非法經(jīng)營罪的本質(zhì)，，把握好其高度概括的罪狀，然后進行合理規(guī)范，以避免動搖罪刑法定原則，這些都是值得思考的問題。作為司法機關(guān)的一員，更能體會這一復(fù)雜而尷尬的現(xiàn)狀。為此，筆者將非法經(jīng)營罪的口袋化困境和規(guī)范解釋路徑作為自己的碩士學(xué)位論文。 非法經(jīng)營罪的設(shè)置雖然帶來了一系列法律適用問題，但從設(shè)置該罪名的初衷和現(xiàn)狀來看，仍有相當高的價值。理智思考非法經(jīng)營罪“口袋化”的原因顯得尤為重要。不能一味地否認它存在的價值，或?qū)栴}的產(chǎn)生完全歸責于立法或者司法，更不能干脆取消該罪名。我國刑法倡導(dǎo)的是罪刑法定原則，刑法的靈活性特性也不能背離該原則，是以它為基礎(chǔ)的，也應(yīng)在該原則的范圍內(nèi)進行，避免出現(xiàn)與該原則相抵觸的刑事立法與司法活動。我們要合理限制非法經(jīng)營罪的各種不確定性規(guī)定，使其進入罪刑法定原則的正常軌道，這是立法者、司法者以及社會各界人士都應(yīng)當共同關(guān)注的課題。筆者認為應(yīng)首先規(guī)范司法機關(guān)的解釋活動；其次是加強立法解釋，限制在司法實踐中所進行司法解釋，嚴格堅持罪刑法定原則，防止司法解釋權(quán)濫用，超越立法宗旨，合理限定司法解釋所依據(jù)的法律文件；最后合理限制非法經(jīng)營罪的無端司法擴張，以便于遏制該罪“口袋化”趨勢蔓延，使其回到應(yīng)有的正常的軌道上來。
[Abstract]:The criminal law of our country in 1979 stipulated the crime of speculation. In this article, the illegal business behavior was also covered. Later, the social development did not need to continue to set up the crime of speculation, and it evolved into a new crime, which is the crime of illegal operation. The crime still retains the flexible stipulation of "other serious disturbance of market order" in the specific setting of the crime, which has a large space and potential uncertainty. In judicial practice, the flexible space is generally restricted by a series of judicial interpretations. In the face of difficult and complex illegal business behavior, the judicial interpretation is constantly introduced to judge, so as to ensure the correct application of criminal conviction and sentencing. This is bound to enlarge the scope of illegal business crime, like a forever dissatisfied pocket as more and more, followed by more and more legal confusion. Regardless of whether the behavior of the perpetrator is legal or not, or whether the behavior is permitted by the law, in the absence of specific provisions of the corresponding criminal law, it may be recognized as the crime of illegal operation by the judicial organ, and then punished by the criminal law. Therefore, the crime shows the characteristic of "pocket", which blurs the boundary between administrative illegal behavior and crime, does not accord with the value orientation of market economy in our country, and leads to the abuse of power. However, the law is flexible, we must distinguish what is administrative violation, what is criminal violation, that is, should be punished by administrative or criminal law, must be clearly defined to avoid all kinds of opportunistic phenomenon. Therefore, whether in theory or in practice, how to correctly understand the essence of the crime of illegal operation, grasp its highly generalized crime, and then conduct reasonable norms to avoid shaking the principle of legality, these are worthy of consideration. As a member of the judiciary, you can understand this complicated and embarrassing situation. For this reason, the author regards the pocket dilemma and normative explanation path of illegal business crime as his master's thesis. Although the establishment of the crime of illegal operation has brought a series of problems in the application of the law, it still has a high value from the original intention and the present situation of the crime. It is particularly important to think rationally about the reasons for the "pocket" of illegal business crime. We should not blindly deny the value of its existence, or blame the problem entirely on legislation or justice, nor should we simply abolish the crime. What our criminal law advocates is the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime, and the flexibility of criminal law cannot deviate from the principle. It is based on this principle and should be carried out within the scope of the principle so as to avoid the occurrence of criminal legislation and judicial activities that conflict with the principle. We should reasonably limit all kinds of uncertain provisions of the crime of illegal operation and make it into the normal track of the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a crime. This is a subject that legislators, judiciaries and people from all walks of life should pay common attention to. The author thinks that we should first regulate the interpretation activities of the judicial organs; Secondly, we should strengthen the legislative interpretation, limit the judicial interpretation in the judicial practice, strictly adhere to the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a crime, prevent the abuse of the judicial interpretation power, transcend the legislative purpose, and reasonably limit the legal documents on which the judicial interpretation is based; Finally, the unwarranted judicial expansion of the crime of illegal operation should be reasonably restricted, so as to curb the spread of the "pocket" trend of the crime and make it return to its proper normal track.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國社會科學(xué)院研究生院
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924.3

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 李盛;非法經(jīng)營罪基本問題研究[J];北京人民警察學(xué)院學(xué)報;2002年01期

2 陳澤憲;非法經(jīng)營罪若干問題研究[J];人民檢察;2000年02期

本文編號：2383771