Abstract: The concept of the “quantity elements of crime” is a distinctive feature of Chinese criminal law.However, transplanting foreign theoretical constructs to address this issue presents methodological challenges in comparative law.The prevailing academic view treats the quantity elements of crime as a constituent element of wrongfulness.This not only undermines the functions of conduct orientation, general prevention and indication of unlawfulness that the elements of wrongfulness are supposed to fulfil, but also poses challenges to constitutional and systemic interpretations of criminal law.In the context of a substantive concept of crime, the quantity elements of crime, as set out in specific provisions corresponding to the proviso in Article 13 of the Chinese Criminal Law, constitute a collective concept of elements that restrict criminal punishment within a broad sense of the constituent elements.This involves considerations of “purposefulness of punishment”.In a staged criminal law system, the stage of the quantity elements of crime (purposefulness of punishment) should follow the stages of wrongfulness and culpability, which justify punishment.This systematic placement does not contradict the standard for attributing criminal liability established by the principle of culpability.It also helps clarify doctrinal controversies concerning issues such as attempt and complicity.

Key words: Quantity Elements of Crime, Proviso, Criminal Law System, Theory of the Constituent Elements, Purposefulness of Punishment

摘要： 刑法分则个罪中的“罪量”要素是中国刑法的特色规定,照搬域外理论的建构方案存在比较法方法论上的障碍。通说将罪量要素视作不法构成要件要素,不仅消解了不法构成要件本应承担的行为指引、一般预防和违法性征表功能,还会遭遇一系列刑法合宪性解释与体系解释的质疑。在实质犯罪概念的语境下,与《刑法》第13条“但书”相对应的分则“罪量”是(广义的)构成要件中刑罚限制要素的集合概念,涉及“刑罚合目的性”的考量。在阶层犯罪论体系中,罪量(刑罚合目的性)阶层应被安置在证立刑罚的不法与罪责阶层之后。这样的体系归置,不仅不会违反罪责原则确立的刑事责任归属标准,还有助于厘清未遂、共犯等教义学争议。

关键词: 罪量, 但书, 犯罪论体系, 构成要件理论, 刑罚合目的性