摘要：

我国《刑法》第13条的但书规定是刑法谦抑性的立法宣示，刑法学界对于其司法功能一直存在“出罪功能”与“入罪限制功能”的争论。通过考察裁判文书可见，司法实践将但书规定作为总括性的出罪标准，阻碍了其他出罪事由的正常运用。主张但书规定具有“入罪限制功能”的观点具有正确的犯罪判断观念和定罪方法论，更为可取。在“出罪标准说”与“入罪限制说”的对立图式下，但书规定的独立意义被犯罪构成理论遮蔽，以致产生虚置甚至取消但书规定的倾向。应当克服这一对立图式的局限性，以但书规定为本位，全面考察但书规定实际发挥的司法功能。《刑法》第13条的但书规定在“入罪限制功能”之外还具有发展出罪事由的“接应功能”，刑法理论及司法实践可以妥善利用这一功能发展规范性、开放性、多元化的出罪事由体系。

关键词: 司法出罪, 但书规定, 出罪功能, 入罪限制功能, 接应功能

Abstract:

The proviso in Article 13 of the Criminal Law of China is a legislative declaration of the modesty of criminal law，and there has been a theoretical debate regarding its function in jurisdiction：“Decriminalization”or“Limiting Criminalization”.It can be seen from the judicial decisions that the judicial practice processes the proviso as a general standard of decriminalization，which hinders the normal application of other causes of incrimination.The viewpoint that the proviso has the function of“limiting criminalization”has the correct notion of crime identification and conviction methodology，which is preferable.Under the antagonistic pattern between the theory of“Decriminalization Standard”and the theory of“Limiting Criminalization”，the independent significance of the proviso is obscured by the constitution theory of crime，which gives rise to the tendency to disregard or even abolish the proviso.It is necessary to overcome the shortage of this opposing schema，to take the proviso as the basis，and to comprehensively examine the actual judicial function played by the proviso.The proviso of Article 13 of the Criminal Law has the“connecting function”of extending the causes of decriminalization in addition to the function of“limiting criminalization”.Criminal law theory and judicial practice can make proper use of this function to develop a normative，open and diversified system of causes of decriminalization.

Key words: Judicial Decriminalization, Proviso, Decriminalization Function, Limiting Criminalization Function, Reinforce Function.