论非论非法经营罪的空白罪状和兜底条款 ——以宋某非法经营保安业务案为例

Theory of the Blank counts and fallback provision on the crime of illegal business——With Song Mou illegal business security business case as an example

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属院系:

法律硕士学院

作者:

李宪

导师:

吴仁碧

导师单位:

法学院

学位:

硕士

语种:

中文

关键词:

非法经营罪;国家规定;其他非法经营行为

摘要:

内容摘要   从投机倒把罪到非法经营罪,是刑法的一大进步,非法经营罪对整治社会主义市场秩序起到了积极的作用,然而随着我国经济的发展,市场上不断出现新的经营形式,同时也很可能不断出现触犯各种法律的经营行为。由于非法经营罪的兜底条款的弹性,近几年来,最高人民法院和最高人民检察院颁布的司法解释不断扩大了非法经营罪的规制范围,司法实践也呈现逐渐扩大适用趋势,许多学者认为有滥用刑法之嫌,甚至有学者基于对该罪破坏罪刑法定原则的担忧,提出废除此罪的提议。   我国经济还处于深化改革的过程之中,国家管理经济的法律法规会随之做出调整,在此背景下,就需要刑法相关规定具有一定弹性来规制严重扰乱市场秩序的失范行为,这是非法经营罪兜底条款存在的根据。但其弹性应有一个度或边界,不管司法解释还是实践适用,超出了此边界就是破坏了罪刑法定原则,本文结合非法经营保安业务一案来探讨非法经营罪的违反国家规定含义和兜底条款含义。   全文主要分为以下四个部分:   第一部份:案件的基本情况。在这部分介绍了案情,对此案有构成非法经营罪、无罪两种完全相反的观点。出现争议的原因是如何理解非法经营罪的“违反规定国家规定”及“其他严重扰乱市场秩序的非法经营行为”含义等。   第二部份:本案的法理分析。主要针对本案争议焦点进行分析,首先是对“违反国家规定”进行论述,其次是围绕“其他严重扰乱市场秩序的非法经营行为”的含义及其存在的合理根据而进行论述。最后论述了定罪要以当行为人违反非刑事法律为前提时,是否适用该非刑事法律也应遵循从旧兼从轻原则。   第三部份:本案的分析结论。通过第二部分中的法理分析,得出本案的结论,即被告人宋某不构成非法经营罪。被告人宋某虽然在客体要件、主体要件,主观方面要件上符合非法经营罪的构成要件,但是宋某行为发生时,国家并无不允许经营保安业务的规定,故宋某的行为不属于“违反国家规定”;也无司法解释或法律规定此类行为可以入罪追究刑事责任的规定,故宋某行为不属于其他严重扰乱市场秩序的非法经营行为。   第四部份:本案的研究启示。综合前三部分的分析,提出更好发挥非法经营罪作用的建议。

学科:

刑法学

提交日期

2019-04-11

引用参考

李宪. 论非论非法经营罪的空白罪状和兜底条款 ——以宋某非法经营保安业务案为例[D]. 西南政法大学,2014.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 论非论非法经营罪的空白罪状和兜底条款 ——以宋某非法经营保安业务案为例
  • dc.title
  • Theory of the Blank counts and fallback provision on the crime of illegal business——With Song Mou illegal business security business case as an example
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20120351021297
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 李宪
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法律硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2014
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 吴仁碧
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 法学院
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 非法经营罪;国家规定;其他非法经营行为
  • dc.subject
  • illegal business;national regulations;other illegal business activities
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 内容摘要   从投机倒把罪到非法经营罪,是刑法的一大进步,非法经营罪对整治社会主义市场秩序起到了积极的作用,然而随着我国经济的发展,市场上不断出现新的经营形式,同时也很可能不断出现触犯各种法律的经营行为。由于非法经营罪的兜底条款的弹性,近几年来,最高人民法院和最高人民检察院颁布的司法解释不断扩大了非法经营罪的规制范围,司法实践也呈现逐渐扩大适用趋势,许多学者认为有滥用刑法之嫌,甚至有学者基于对该罪破坏罪刑法定原则的担忧,提出废除此罪的提议。   我国经济还处于深化改革的过程之中,国家管理经济的法律法规会随之做出调整,在此背景下,就需要刑法相关规定具有一定弹性来规制严重扰乱市场秩序的失范行为,这是非法经营罪兜底条款存在的根据。但其弹性应有一个度或边界,不管司法解释还是实践适用,超出了此边界就是破坏了罪刑法定原则,本文结合非法经营保安业务一案来探讨非法经营罪的违反国家规定含义和兜底条款含义。   全文主要分为以下四个部分:   第一部份:案件的基本情况。在这部分介绍了案情,对此案有构成非法经营罪、无罪两种完全相反的观点。出现争议的原因是如何理解非法经营罪的“违反规定国家规定”及“其他严重扰乱市场秩序的非法经营行为”含义等。   第二部份:本案的法理分析。主要针对本案争议焦点进行分析,首先是对“违反国家规定”进行论述,其次是围绕“其他严重扰乱市场秩序的非法经营行为”的含义及其存在的合理根据而进行论述。最后论述了定罪要以当行为人违反非刑事法律为前提时,是否适用该非刑事法律也应遵循从旧兼从轻原则。   第三部份:本案的分析结论。通过第二部分中的法理分析,得出本案的结论,即被告人宋某不构成非法经营罪。被告人宋某虽然在客体要件、主体要件,主观方面要件上符合非法经营罪的构成要件,但是宋某行为发生时,国家并无不允许经营保安业务的规定,故宋某的行为不属于“违反国家规定”;也无司法解释或法律规定此类行为可以入罪追究刑事责任的规定,故宋某行为不属于其他严重扰乱市场秩序的非法经营行为。   第四部份:本案的研究启示。综合前三部分的分析,提出更好发挥非法经营罪作用的建议。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • Abstract    From the crime of speculation to the crime of illegal business, this is a major advancement of criminal law. The crime of illegal business market order rectification has played a positive role. However, with the development of China's economy, the emergence of new business forms on the market is also likely to continue violated various legal business behavior. Since the elastic illegal business plugging terms in recent years, the Supreme Court and the Supreme People's Procurator issued a judicial interpretation expanding the scope of illegal business regulation. Judicial practice has gradually extend the trend showed that many scholars believe that there is abuse of the criminal law suspected, even some scholars worry about the crime of destruction based on the principle of legality and propose to abolish this crime.    China's economy is still in the process of further reform. National laws and regulations to manage the economy will be adjusted, in this context, the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code needs to have some flexibility to regulate seriously disrupted the market order of anomie behavior, which is illegal business plugging in accordance with the terms of existence. But there should be a degree of elasticity or border, regardless of judicial interpretation and practice applicable beyond this boundary is undermining the principle of legality, this paper explores the crime of illegal business in violation of state regulations and plugging the meaning of the terms meaning by illegal business security business case.    The article consists of the following four parts:    The basic circumstances of the case: the first part. This section describes the merits of the case whether has constituted the crime of illegal business or not, acquitted two completely opposite views. The reason for the dispute is how to understand the crime of illegal business "violation of state regulations" and "other seriously disrupted the market order", etc.    Part II: the case of the legal analysis. The main focus of the analysis carried out for the dispute in this case. First, "violation of state regulations" is discussed, followed by the theme of "seriously disrupted the market order and other illegal business practices," the meaning and reasonable basis exists to start on. Finally, discusses the need when the perpetrator convicted of non-criminal violations of the law, the applicability of the non-criminal law should also follow the principles from the old and lighter.    Part III: the case of the analysis results. By the second part of the legal analysis of the case come to the conclusion that the defendant Song does not constitute a crime of illegal business. Although the defendant Song object element, the main elements of the subjective aspects in line with the elements constituting the crime of illegal business requirements, but when Song behavior occurs, laws have not allowed to operate security business requirements. It does not belong to conduct Song "breach state regulations". No law or judicial interpretation of such acts can be prosecuted incriminating criminal provisions. Song behavior does not belong to other illegal business activities seriously disrupted the market order.    Part IV: case study of Revelation. Integrate analysis of the first three parts and propose some proposal that play the better role of the crime of illegal business.
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2026-01-19
  • dc.date.oralDefense
  • 2014-05-10
回到顶部