犯罪主观明知推定适用中“合理解释”的司法认定

The Judicial Determination of "Reasonable Interpretation" in the Application of Subjective Known Presumption of Crime

成果信息
DC信息
传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属学者：

胡江

归属院系：

法学院

作者：

胡江1 ;何冰原

摘要：

刑事推定对解决主观明知的证明问题起到了重要作用,但推定的事实并非绝对真实,有可反驳的余地。为此,我国司法规范性文件中规定了"合理解释"的反驳方式,但合理解释的认定却缺乏相应的规定,导致实践中司法机关在推定明知时,对于行为人辩解是否需要提供证据、解释是否合理把握不准,易混淆可能知道与明知的界限。同时,部分审判机关在裁判文书中对行为人辩解鲜有回应或陷入循环说理,裁判结果令人难以信服。为完善犯罪主观明知推定规则,需要在明晰合理解释性质的前提下,依据客观事实和证据,结合事理、情理、常理判断该解释是否足以动摇推定明知的成立,从而认定是否合理。

出版日期：

2020-08-01

学科：

刑法学

提交日期：

2020-10-02

引用参考：

胡江;何冰原. 犯罪主观明知推定适用中“合理解释”的司法认定[J]. 湖北警官学院学报,2020(04):49-56.

全文附件授权许可：

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 犯罪主观明知推定适用中“合理解释”的司法认定
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 胡江;何冰原
  • dc.contributor.author
  • Hu Jiang;He Bingyuan;Southwest University of Political Science and Law
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.publisher
  • 湖北警官学院学报
  • dc.publisher
  • Journal of Hubei University of Police
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2020
  • dc.identifier.issue
  • 04
  • dc.identifier.volume
  • v.33;No.199
  • dc.identifier.page
  • 49-56
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2020-08-01
  • dc.subject
  • 主观明知;刑事推定;合理解释;常理常情;司法认定
  • dc.subject
  • Subjective Knowledge;Criminal Presumption;Reasonable Explanation;Common Sense;Judicial Determination
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 刑事推定对解决主观明知的证明问题起到了重要作用,但推定的事实并非绝对真实,有可反驳的余地。为此,我国司法规范性文件中规定了"合理解释"的反驳方式,但合理解释的认定却缺乏相应的规定,导致实践中司法机关在推定明知时,对于行为人辩解是否需要提供证据、解释是否合理把握不准,易混淆可能知道与明知的界限。同时,部分审判机关在裁判文书中对行为人辩解鲜有回应或陷入循环说理,裁判结果令人难以信服。为完善犯罪主观明知推定规则,需要在明晰合理解释性质的前提下,依据客观事实和证据,结合事理、情理、常理判断该解释是否足以动摇推定明知的成立,从而认定是否合理。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • Criminal presumption plays an important role in solving the problem of subjective well-known proof,but the fact of the presumption is not absolutely true and there is room for rebuttal. For this reason, the rebuttal method of "reasonable explanation" is stipulated in the judicial normative document of our country, but the determination of reasonable explanation lacks the corresponding stipulation, which leads to the judicial organ in practice to provide evidence to the perpetrator's defense when the presumption is known, whether the explanation is reasonable or not, it is easy to confuse the possible know and knowing boundaries. At the same time, some judicial bodies have little response or fall into the circular reasoning to the perpetrator's defense in the judgment document, the outcome of the decision is difficult to be convincing. In order to perfect the rules of subjective presumption of knowledge of crime, it is necessary to clarify the nature of reasonable interpretation Under the objective facts and evidence, combined with rational, reasonable, common sense to determine whether the actor's explanation is sufficient to shake the presumpt knowing establishment, thus determine whether it is a reasonable explanation.
  • dc.description.sponsorshipPCode
  • 201717SFB2022;20192019XZZD-01
  • dc.description.sponsorship
  • 司法部2017年度国家法治与法学理论研究项目“非传统安全视野下的毒品犯罪治理研究”（17SFB2022）;西南政法大学2019年度重点项目“第三代毒品的法律监管与治理对策研究”（2019XZZD-01）
  • dc.identifier.CN
  • 42-1743/D
  • dc.identifier.issn
  • 1673-2391
  • dc.identifier.if
  • 0.303
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D924.11
回到顶部