论法益的判断方法——以受贿罪中“为他人谋取利益”的解释为例

On the Judgment Method of Legal Interests —Taking the Interpretation of “Seeking Benefits for Others” in the Crime of Bribery as an Example

摘要: 如果从基础主义的进路讨论法益问题，那么就会脱离实际情况，过度依赖直觉，造成不同直觉之间的冲突与对抗，形成无效的争论。为了避免使得理论争议成为概念争议，应当利用反思平衡的方法思考法益，将法益规定为纯粹语词、视为对某一犯罪处罚模式的总体命名，而不应当将其视为形而上的犯罪处罚基础；从而可以在一定的社会共同体的实践的价值观、伦理道德体系中对法益进行反思。借助受贿罪中“为他人谋取利益”要件是否应当删去的问题入手，展示如何运用反思平衡的方法将法益问题导入教义学运思，并且形成了对受贿罪保护法益的初步结论。廉洁义务说建立在并不区分不法和责任的刑法评价体系上，无法和其他法益理论进行对话；不可收买性说无法妥当地解释“为他人谋取利益”要件的存在；公正性说能够解释“为他人谋取利益”的存在，但是太过模糊，一方面无法阻挡将“为他人谋取利益”理解为可罚性要件，另一方面无法解释作为程序的公正性。最终，公权力的不可谋私性是更为妥当地解释方案。

Abstract: If we discuss the issue of legal interests from a foundational perspective, it will deviate from the actual situation, overly rely on intuition, cause conflicts and confrontations between different in-tuitions, and form invalid debates. In order to avoid making theoretical disputes conceptual dis-putes, a reflective and balanced approach should be used to consider legal interests. Legal inter-ests should be defined as pure words and regarded as the overall naming of a certain criminal punishment model, rather than being seen as a metaphysical basis for criminal punishment; thus, it is possible to reflect on legal interests within the practical values and ethical and moral system of a certain social community. Starting from the question of whether the element of “seeking benefits for others” in the crime of bribery should be deleted, this article demonstrates how to use the method of reflection and balance to introduce the issue of legal interests into the theoretical thinking, and forms a preliminary conclusion on the protection of legal interests in the crime of bribery. The theory of integrity obligation is based on a criminal law evaluation system that does not distinguish between illegality and responsibility, and cannot engage in dialogue with other legal interest theories; the theory of non buy ability cannot properly explain the existence of the element of “seeking benefits for others”; the theory of fairness can explain the existence of “seeking benefits for others”, but it is too vague to prevent the understanding of “seeking benefits for others” as a punitive element, and on the other hand, it cannot explain the fairness of the procedure. Ultimately, the unselfishness of public power is a more appropriate explanation for the solution.