诈骗类犯罪中合同效力判定路径探究

• 영문명: Exploring the Path of Determining the Validity of Contracts in Fraud Crimes
• 발행기관: YIXIN 출판사
• 저자명: 金丹(Dan Jin) 申彦民(Yanmin Shen) 周群(Qun Zhou)
• 간행물 정보: 『Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences』제2권 제3호, 135~143쪽, 전체 9쪽
• 주제분류: 사회과학 > 교육학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2024.06.30

국문 초록

In recent years, with changes in the structure of crime, property crimes such as contract fraud and fundraising fraud have become increasingly prevalent, with the number of fraud crimes rising annually. In such crimes, the determination of contract validity becomes the “last straw” for many defrauded parties seeking civil remedies. Correctly understanding and applying Article 153 of the Civil Code of China is the premise and foundation for determining the validity of contracts involved in crimes. The functional positioning of the first clause of Article 153 of the Civil Code serves as a “link” connecting public law and private law, allowing criminal law, as a public law, to intervene in and influence the realm of private rights through this provision, demonstrating the inducement function of the provision. The technical functional positioning of the first clause of Article 153 of the Civil Code is an “authorization interpretation clause,” emphasizing that, in addition to having an inducement function, it also grants judges the right to weigh legal interests and make value judgments on cases. Therefore, whether criminal law provisions can be induced into the first clause of Article 153 of the Civil Code to become mandatory provisions determining contract invalidity requires judges to apply judicial syllogism, judge the substantive content of the law, and evaluate the purpose, background, and intention of the specific criminal law provision through legal interpretation rules. For criminal law provisions whose normative purpose and realization aim are non-effective mandatory provisions, the application of the first clause of Article 153 of the Civil Code should be excluded. By analyzing the application of the first clause of Article 153 of the Civil Code in judicial practice, this article provides a path for identifying the validity of contracts involved in crimes correctly.

영문 초록

近年，随着犯罪结构发生变化，合同诈骗罪、集资诈骗罪等财产性犯罪高发，诈骗类犯罪数量呈逐年递增趋势，在此类犯罪中，合同效力的认定成为多数受骗相对方能否获得民事救济的“最后一根救命稻草”，正确理解与适用我国民法典153 条之规定，是判定涉罪合同效力的前提与基础。民法典153条第1 款的设置功能定位为连接公法与私法的“纽带”，作为公法性质的刑事法律可以通过该法条对私权领域进行介入和影响，体现法条的引致功能；民法典153 条第1 款的技术功能定位为“授权解释条款”，强调除具备引致功能之外，还赋予法官对案件进行法益衡量、价值判断的权利。故刑法规定能否被引致进入民法153 条第1 款，成为判定合同无效的强制性规定，需裁判者适用司法三段论，对法律实质内容进行判断，通过法律解释规则对某一具体刑法罪名的设置目的、背景、意旨等方面进行评判，深究该具体刑法罪名的规范性目的及实现宗旨，对于设置目的及内容属于非效力性强制性规定的刑法罪名，则应当排除民法典153 条第1 款的适用。通过分析民法典153 条第1 款在司法实务中的适用，为涉罪合同效力的正确判定提供甄别路径。

목차

Ⅰ.引言

Ⅱ.适用民法典153 条第1 款判定涉罪合同效力的基本路径

Ⅲ.刑法规定被引致进入民法典153 条第1 款的判定逻辑

Ⅳ.结语

키워드

Elderly Fraud Mandatory Legal Provisions Contract Validity in Crimes Legal Interpretation 养老诈骗 法律强制性规定 涉罪合同效力 法律解释