论文部分内容阅读
追诉期限的终点如何确定是我国刑法学界和司法实务界争议较大的一个问题。“强制时说”与刑法文义解释的基本要求不符,因而早已被摒弃;“立案时说”虽然见诸最高人民检察院的规范性文件,并且系我国刑法学界的主流学说,但是其因系对追诉期限所做的不利于被告的限制解释以及对司法解释的适用范围所做的不利于被告的扩大解释而有违刑法解释的基本规则,因而难以经受合理性诘问;“审判时说”虽然接近对追诉期限文义的正解,但是以“审判时”这一模糊术语作为追诉期限的终点不具有特定性和唯一性,易引发新的纷争,并且,其将1997年《刑法》第88条规定的反对解释引作支撑其文义解释的理据,是基于对该条规定的严重误读,因而反使其系统解释与文义解释不相吻合,难以令人信服;“结果时说”完全符合追诉期限之本义,契合文义解释的基本要求,并且可以从2012年《刑事诉讼法》第15条第2款的规定得到系统解释的有力支撑,尤其是相对而言,其是一种最有利于被告的解释,因此,其应当成为我国刑法学界和司法实务界共同遵循的通说。
How to determine the end of the time limit for prosecution is a controversial issue in the field of criminal law and judicial practice. “Said when filing the case ” Although see the normative documents of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, and is the mainstream theory of criminal law scholars in our country, but it is not the same as the basic requirements of criminal law textual interpretation, The reason is that it is difficult to withstand the basic rules of criminal law interpretation due to the restriction on the time limit for the prosecution of the accused and the application of the judicial interpretation that is unfavorable to the expanded interpretation of the defendant. Said “though approaching the positive solution to the term of the prosecution deadline, it is not certain and unique that the vague term of” trial time “as the end of the prosecution period will easily lead to new disputes. Moreover, The objection explained in Article 88 of the Criminal Law in 1978 as a basis for supporting its interpretation is based on a serious misinterpretation of the article, thus making it difficult to convince that its systematic explanation is inconsistent with the interpretation of the text ; ”When the result is said" fully complies with the basic requirements of the time limit of the prosecution, meets the basic requirements for the interpretation of the text, and can be strongly supported by the systematic interpretation from the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 15 of the 2012 Criminal Procedure Law, especially relatively Words, it is one of the most beneficial to the defendant’s interpretation, therefore, it should become China’s criminal law and judicial practice to follow the common Tong said.