On Subjective Fault Of Crime Of Malfeasance In Food Regulation

The revised "criminal law" in 1997, added the crime of stealing commercial secrets, leading the angle of criminal protection to increase the crackdownFood regulatory malfeasance crime is the additional charges of Criminal Law Amendment(eight), theorists and practitioners were confused about the form of guilt of this crime. Such as, the form of the crime of this crime is a single form of sin or a compound sin form; the identification standard of perpetrator subjective guilt is behavior standard, the result standard or double standards. If according to the result standard, then how is the mentality of the perpetrator on the harm results? The property of provision of the crime of "lead to major food safety accidents or other serious consequences," is the objective conditions of punishment, objective exceeding factors or the results of constitution of crime. In the process of solving these problems,How to implement the coordination and unification of the criminal law system, how to correspond to legal Principles of Crimes and principle of suiting punishment to crime and the modestly restraining spirit of the criminal law. For these problems, the opinions of theory circle of criminal law are divergent. Disputes in the theoretical circles are bound to affect the identification and treatment of the crime of dereliction of duty in the field of judicial practice. Based on the standpoint of the theory of criminal law interpretation, this paper discusses in detail the crime of food supervision and administration of dereliction of duty should be identified by two different ways of behavior, combined with the specific provisions of China's criminal law and the exploration results of other scholars, the form of subjective guilt of food regulatory malfeasance crime of abuse of power is intentional, but the form of subjective guilt of food regulatory malfeasance crime of neglect of duty is negligence.This paper is divided into three chapters:The first chapter discussed disputes on the subjective guilt of the crime ofdereliction of duty in food supervision. Firstly, the author makes a summary of the dispute and the main basis about the crime of dereliction of duty in food supervision,classified the focus of each theory dispute and solve the problem to guide the direction for the following argumentation.The second chapter is about the question of the theory premise. In the problem of the identification of the crime, behavior standards can not comprehensively and clearly evaluate the perpetrator's subjective malignant, the result standard should be used. Through the analysis of the objective conditions of punishment, objective exceeding factors or the results of constitution of crime, it is concluded that these theories don't conform to the crime of our country constitution theory. So the property of " Lead to major food safety accidents or other serious consequences" is the results of the objective aspect of the crime. Through the analysis on the harmful result and the object of crime, harmful result is objective fact level,and the object of the crime belongs to the level of value evaluation, it is concluded that the harmful consequences of food regulatory malfeasance crime is " Lead to major food safety accidents or other serious consequences". The national food regulatory activities and the trust of the public behavior on the legitimacy and fairness of the duty behavior should belong to the object of the crime.The third chapter is the establishment of the form of subjective guilty of food supervision dereliction of duty. This paper considers the theory of form of compound fault that does not distinguish between intention and negligence violates the criminal law basic principle, the form of guilt of this crime is still single crime form. From the legislative style analysis, food regulatory dereliction of duty should be based on two different ways of behavior to identify the perpetrator subjective guilt. Combined with practical cases, the form of subjective guilt of food regulatory malfeasance crime of abuse of power is intentional, Including direct and indirect intention, but the form of subjective guilt of food regulatory malfeasance crime of neglect of duty is negligence.