作者：杜宇
作者介绍：复旦大学法学院教授
出版日期：2025年4月9日
内容提要 在当下中国的刑事立法上，存在着一种独特的违法构造。在这一构造中，行为不法被分为前后相继的两个层次，隐含着违法评价的分阶检验与渐次形成机理，本文称之为“二阶刑事违法”。其中，“初阶违法”是指基于行为人前部行为所形成的违法性，其以前置法上的义务违反为根据；“次阶违法”则指在后续的程序性处置中，因行为人拒不履行相关义务而形成的二次违法。一方面，这两种违法性在违法根据、内涵形成、界分重心及规范评价上有着相当差异，应当被明确区分开来；另一方面，两者既相互补充又相互限制，共同塑造着整体的违法评价。透过这一特殊的违法构造，立法者试图整体性地限缩刑事处罚范围，并与前置法的规制范围保留一定的过渡空间，从而使保障法自身的规范任务得以安置，由此形成了一种“违法阶梯”式的立法架构。这一违法构造将在实体裁判与程序安排上产生体系性与贯穿性的影响：前者体现在违法时点与违法数额的判断之上；后者体现在程序流程的动态引导与追诉时效的附随确定之上。
关键词 二阶刑事违法 初阶违法 次阶违法 客观处罚条件
Abstract: In current criminal legislation in China, there is a unique illegal structure, which is called the ‘two-layer criminal illegality’. In this structure, illegal conduct is divided into two successive layers, which implies the hierarchical test and gradual formation mechanism of illegal evaluation. Among them, the ‘primary-layer illegality’ refers to the illegality formed on the basis of the previous act of the perpetrator, which is based on the violation of obligations under the pre-law; while the ‘secondary-layer illegality’ refers to the latter violation caused by the perpetrator’s refusal to fulfill relevant obligations in subsequent procedural disposal. On the one hand, there are significant differences between the two types of illegality in terms of the basis of illegality, the formation of connotation, key points of demarcation, and normative evaluation, which shall be clearly distinguished. On the other hand, the two types of illegality complement and limit each other, jointly shaping the overall illegal evaluation. Through this special illegal structure, legislature attempts to limit the scope of criminal punishment and reserve a certain space between the regulatory scope of criminal law and that of the pre-law, so that the normative task of criminal law itself can be completed, thus forming a framework of the ‘ladder of illegality’. This illegal structure will have a systematic and continuous impact on the substantive judgment and procedural arrangement: The former is reflected in the judgment of the time and amount of crime; the latter is reflected in the dynamic guidance of the procedure flow and the determination of the limitation for prosecution.