作者：马春晓
作者介绍：南京大学法学院副教授，法学博士
出版日期：2023年12月9日
内容提要 行政犯的双重违法性构造决定了其主观上存在双重违法性认识错误，既存在关于前置行政法律规范的认识错误（行政违法性认识错误），也存在关于刑法规范的认识错误（刑事违法性认识错误）。前者为行政犯所独有，是当前理论争议的焦点。承袭自德日刑法的责任说，以自然犯为原型建构的违法性认识错误处理规则，未能充分兼顾行政犯的双重违法性特征；而故意说则赋予构成要件认识与违法性认识同等的主观归责地位，与既有的犯罪论体系难以兼容。应当认为，行政违法性是行政犯构成要件的必要组成部分，离开行政违法性的“裸的”构成要件事实在不法评价上具有中立性。行为人只有在认识到行政违法性的基础上，才能产生关于刑事违法性的认识。行政违法性认识错误应归为构成要件错误，具有阻却犯罪故意的效果。“新责任说”既保留了责任说关于构成要件认识错误与违法性认识错误的区分，又结合行政犯的特质予以改造，实现了违法性认识错误在自然犯与行政犯中处理规则的统一，是我国统一刑法典模式下较为理想的处理方案。
关键词 行政犯 双重违法性 违法性认识错误 新责任说
Abstract: The structure of the dual illegality of administrative crimes determines that there are two kinds of mistake in illegality in administrative crime, which includes mistake in understanding the pre-administrative legal norms (mistake in understanding administrative illegality) and mistake in understanding criminal law norms (mistake in understanding criminal illegality). The former is unique to administrative crimes and is currently the focus of theoretical controversy. The theory of responsibility inherited from German and Japanese criminal laws was initially based on the treatment rules for natural crimes, which failed to fully take into account the nature of the dual illegality of administrative crimes. Meanwhile, the theory of intent gives equal subjective responsibility to the cognition of constitutive elements and illegality, which is incompatible with the existing criminal theory system. It should be recognized that administrative illegality is a vital constituent element of administrative crimes and that the ‘bare’ facts of constituent elements of crimes which leave administrative illegality are neutral in the evaluation of illegality. Individuals can only develop a recognition of criminal illegality based on subjective recognition of administrative illegality. Mistakes in understanding administrative illegality should be classified as the mistake of constituent elements which could exclude the criminal intent. This ‘neo-theory of responsibility’ retains the distinction between mistakes in constituent elements and illegal cognition in the theory of responsibility, and combines it with the characteristics of administrative crimes to transform the theory of responsibility, achieving unity in handling rules for natural crimes and administrative crimes, making it an ideal solution under the unified criminal code model in China.