刑行交叉视野下非法经营法律责任厘定

发布时间：2018-05-08 20:16

本文选题：非法经营 + 刑行交叉　；参考：《法律适用》2017年03期

【摘要】：非法经营罪中空白罪状的行政依附性与行政法律规范中刑事责任条款的宣示功能,使非法经营刑行责任的界分呈现出胶着状态。只有违反行政许可中的特别许可的经营行为,才构成非法经营罪,而违反一般许可的经营行为仅具有行政违法性。附属刑法设置的目的在于提请注意和强化宣示功能,对定罪量刑并无实质意义。将越权经营认定为非法经营罪应当慎重,但其出罪的理由并不是该行为不属于非法经营行为,而是其违法性程度相对较低。在非法经营罪案件审理过程中,如果行政许可被撤销的,应坚持从旧兼从轻的原则,作无罪处理。以不正当手段取得行政许可的行为具有行政违法性,但在被撤销前行政许可本身仍然有效,可以阻却非法经营罪构成要件符合性。在刑行法律责任竞合的场合,以前行为行政处罚的事实作为后行为认定犯罪的依据,是基于人身危险性的考量而降低后行为的入罪门槛,并不违反禁止重复评价原则。
[Abstract]:The administrative dependence of blank crime in the crime of illegal operation and the declaration function of the criminal liability clause in the administrative law norm make the boundary of criminal responsibility of illegal operation appear to be glued. Only the operation of violating the special license in the administrative license constitutes the crime of illegal operation, while the operation of violating the general license has only administrative illegality. The purpose of the establishment of subsidiary criminal law is to draw attention and strengthen the function of declaration, which has no substantive significance for conviction and sentencing. It is necessary to be cautious in determining the ultra vires operation as the crime of illegal management, but the reason for the crime is not that the act is not an illegal operation, but that the degree of illegality is relatively low. In the course of the trial of illegal business crime, if the administrative license is revoked, we should insist on the principle of abusing both the old and the light. The act of obtaining an administrative license by improper means has administrative illegality, but the administrative license itself is still valid before being revoked, which can prevent the conformity of the constitutive requirements of the crime of illegal operation. On the occasion of concurrent legal liability of criminal conduct, the fact of administrative punishment of previous acts as the basis for the determination of the crime is based on the consideration of personal dangerousness to reduce the threshold of incrimination, and does not violate the principle of prohibition of repeated evaluation.
【作者单位】：华东政法大学;上海市虹口区人民法院;
【分类号】：D924.3;D922.11

【参考文献】