作者：熊樟林
作者介绍：东南大学法学院教授
出版日期：2023年4月9日
内容提要 《行政处罚法》中的主观过错条款,应被解释为一种定罚规定，直接决定应受行政处罚行为是否成立。故意与过失的区分评价并不单单只发生在定罚阶段，还可以被二次评价至量罚之中，但它不宜作为行政机关的法定义务。在“过失”认定上，需区分对待“重大过失”“一般过失”和“具体过失”。对立法文本写明的“重大过失”，宜采用与故意类似的判断规则，但仅在立法文本中以“过失”加以表述者，则需行政机关在“一般过失”与“具体过失”之间加以权衡。基于法的安定性与平等性等方面的考量，应借鉴刑法学上的行为人标准对行政处罚上的过失加以认定。从文义上看，主观过错条款中的“另有规定”，存在“从宽解释”和“从严解释”两种面向，应采用目的性限缩解释方法，将之向从严方面延展，从而将我国行政处罚活动限定在责任主义框架之内。
关键词 行政处罚 主观过错 一般过失 具体过失 另有规定
Abstract: The subjective fault clause in the Administrative Penalty Law should be interpreted as such a provision as to determining whether the act subject to administrative punishment is established. The distinction between intentional act and negligence does not only occur at the stage of determining the penalty, but can also be evaluated twice in the sentencing stage, however, it is not suitable to be a legal obligation of the administrative organ. In the determination of negligence, it is necessary to distinguish between gross negligence, general negligence and specific negligence. It is necessary for gross negligence that is stated in legislative text to adopt judgment rules similar to judging intentional act. However, the single ‘negligence’ in the legislative text requires the executive to weigh between general negligence and specific negligence. Based on the consideration of the stability and equality of the law, the perpetrator standard in the criminal law should be used to determine negligence in administrative punishment. From the textual point of view, the ‘other provisions’ in the subjective fault clause have two aspects: lenient interpretation and strict interpretation, and the purposive limiting interpretation method should be adopted to extend it to the strict aspect, so as to limit the administrative punishment to the framework of responsibility doctrine.