【摘要】：關(guān)于毒品交易居間行為的性質(zhì),《禁毒法》與最高司法機(jī)關(guān)的司法解釋持不同的態(tài)度,學(xué)界存在"無罪說""販賣毒品罪說""因情定性說"等三種不同的主張。結(jié)合中國刑法既定性又定量的特點(diǎn),根據(jù)共同犯罪理論分析,毒品交易居間行為不能簡單地一概以犯罪論處,也不能簡單地一概不以犯罪論處,更不宜一概以某種犯罪論處,需要根據(jù)其所依附的行為,以及居間行為對(duì)毒品交易的促進(jìn)作用來確定。毒品交易中居間介紹行為原則上應(yīng)依《禁毒法》追究行政責(zé)任,居間實(shí)行行為除兩種情形外,原則上要以毒品犯罪的共犯處理。在確定毒品交易居間行為與哪一方成立共同犯罪以及定何種犯罪時(shí),需要分類根據(jù)共同犯罪理論確定。
[Abstract]:As to the nature of the intermediation of drug trade, the Drug Control Law holds different attitudes from the judicial interpretation of the highest judicial organs, and there are three different opinions in academic circles, such as "innocence", "drug trafficking" and "characterization because of emotion". In light of the established and quantitative characteristics of Chinese criminal law, and according to the theory of joint crime, the intermediation of drug transactions cannot simply be treated as a crime, nor can it simply not be dealt with as a crime, let alone as a crime. It needs to be determined in terms of the behavior to which it depends and the facilitating effect of intermediation on the drug trade. In principle, the intermediary introduction should be investigated for administrative responsibility according to the Drug Control Law. Except for two cases, the intermediary behavior should be dealt with as an accomplice in drug crime in principle. It is necessary to classify drug trade as the theory of joint crime in order to determine with which party the joint crime is established and which kind of crime is to be established.
【作者單位】： 安徽大學(xué)法學(xué)院;
【基金】：國家社會(huì)科學(xué)基金重點(diǎn)項(xiàng)目“現(xiàn)代風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的治理與非傳統(tǒng)安全的刑法保障”(項(xiàng)目號(hào):13AFX011)的階段性成果
【分類號(hào)】：D922.14
，

本文編號(hào)：2429407