刑民交叉论文：对诉讼法中“先刑后民”观念的反思

刑民交叉论文：对诉讼法中“先刑后民”观念的反思 【中文摘要】在司法实践中,刑民交叉案件的处理一直都是个难题。目前,关于刑民交叉案件的研究多限于实体方面和纯法理学方面的研究,而缺少对程序问题的研究。虽然理论界和司法界已经开始对“先刑后民”原则的正当性产生怀疑,但还缺乏系统性的具有司法实践指导意义的研究结论。本文从一个真实案例出发,高度概括了案件争议的焦点及分歧意见,并透过案件焦点梳理出相关的法律问题,即刑事诉讼中的“先刑后民”问题。再对“先刑后民”的概念进行解析,并通过梳理相关的规范性文件,呈现了“先刑后民”被误作为一项司法原则予以普遍适用的过程,进而找准“先刑后民”的法律定位,即“先刑后民”并非司法原则,其仅仅是与“先民后刑”、“刑民并进”相平行的一种案件处理模式而已。然后再重点对刑民交叉案件进行分类解析,列举出几种司法实践中较常出现的情形,总结出不同情形下案件的基本处理模式,并辅助案例加以说明,这些案例均是工作中办理的真实案例,使得对刑民交叉案件的程序问题探讨更加全面、立体,以求对该类案件的程序处理达到具有实效性和可操作性的效果。本文将刑民交叉案件分为同一法律事实引发的刑主民案件、民主刑案件、刑民无主从案件,不同法律事实引发的刑民交叉案件,并提出选择处理模式的关键在于判断民事案件处理结果和刑事案件处理之间的关联性,即哪个案件的处理结果必须依赖于另一个案件的处理结果,那么另一个案件就应当先行处理,如果两个案件的处理结果之间互不影响,则 可以并行处理。并且总结出判断刑民交叉案件定性的基本方法,即民事分析法和刑事分析法,其基本步骤是先审查民事关系诸要素与刑事犯罪各构成要件之间是否具有“对应性”,如果两者不具有对应性,则该案为纯民事案件,如果两者具有对应性,再运用行为的量化、序化分析法来判断该行为是否达到了应受刑法惩罚性的标准,是否存在阻却犯罪的事由,从而断定其是否需要用刑法进行规范。本文通过反思“先刑后民”,对刑民交叉案件的处理提出了“先刑后民”、“先民后刑”、“刑民并进”三种处理模式,以期为处理该类案件提供程序上的理论依据和思路。 【英文摘要】The handling of interlocked penal and civil cases has always been a tough problem in judicial practice. At present, the study on interlocked penal and civil cases almost limited to the aspects of entity and pure jurisprudence instead of the study on procedure problems. Theoretical circles and judicial circles have begun to doubt the legitimacy of the principle of criminal procedure prior to civil procedure, but short of the systematic research conclusion guided by judicial practice.Based on a real case, this paper sums up the focal points and divergent opinions of the case, and via the focus of the case to sorts out relevant legal issues, that is the issue about criminal procedure prior to civil procedure in criminal proceedings. Then the paper explains the concept of criminal procedure prior to civil procedure, presenting a process that the concept of criminal procedure prior to civil procedure has been mistreated as a judicial principle to be applied universally after the review of the relevant normative documents. Convinced that the legal status of criminal procedure prior to civil procedure, namely it is not a judicial principle, is just a model of handling the case parallel to civil proceeding before criminal proceeding and combination of criminal procedure and civil procedure, presenting a taxonomic analysis of interlocked penal and civil cases, enumerating several frequent situations in judicial practice, thus coming to the conclusion that there is a basic handling model under different circumstances, which is explained by some cases (these are real cases handled in our work). And therefore, the procedures of interlocked penal and civil cases will be discussed more completely, so as to promote the procedure handling of such cases to achieve the effects of effectiveness and operability. This paper divides the interlocked penal and civil cases into cases caused by the same legal facts including civil cases subject to penal cases, penal cases subject to civil cases and no priorities between penal and civil cases, and interlocked penal and civil cases caused by different legal facts. Believing that the key of choosing handling models is to judge the relevance of the results of civil cases and criminal cases, in other words, which case result have to rely on the other, and hence the other should be handled first, and if both results are not affected each other, then both cases can be handled together. Summing up the general way of judging the nature of interlocked penal and civil cases, namely the civil case analysis and criminal case analysis, is to examine if there is “correspondence”between elements of civil relationship and elements constitute criminal crime. Supposing that there is no correspondence, the case is civil case, in the event that correspondence is existed, the analysis of qualification and order of the act should be applied to judge whether the act deserves criminal punishment or whether there is a ground to prevent from committing crime, so as to judge whether the case should be regulated by criminal law or not.By rethinking the concept of criminal procedure prior to civil procedure, the paper proposes such three handling models as criminal procedure prior to civil procedure, civil proceeding before criminal proceeding and combination of criminal procedure and civil procedure for interlocked penal and civil cases, in an effort to provide theoretical basis and thought