以“但书”条款的出罪功能辩驳“明知”的轻易入罪
Using the Acquittal Function of the “Proviso” to Rebut the Easy Incrimination of “Knowingly”

设立多项轻罪罪名本身无疑降低了入罪门槛，自然伴生的轻罪扩张问题需要寻求出罪之法的平衡。司法者需要发挥“但书”条款对当下大量轻罪行为入罪的制约作用，通过对入罪标准的合理把控促进对“但书”条款出罪功能的运用，对符合“但书”规定的“情节显著轻微危害不大”的轻罪行为敢于出罪。司法实践中，“但书”出罪有以情节显著轻微且危害不大为由，认定行为人根本不符合犯罪构成而宣告无罪，和以形式上符合构成犯罪为前提，但进行情节严重性与社会危害性的双重判断后实现出罪这两种模式；前一模式中，需要借助“但书”界定排除适用“推定明知”的各类可能，后者模式里，需区分“明知他人犯罪”和“明知他人从事违法行为”等差异，在犯罪构成之外实现“但书”里主观恶性小的“情节显著轻微”出罪功能。不论何种模式，在主观构成要件层面，都需要根据罪刑法定原则和“但书”条款对轻罪构成要件“明知”进行限缩解释，慎用明知的“推定规则”，并在此基础上完善“推定明知”规则。
The establishment of multiple minor offense charges has undoubtedly lowered the threshold for conviction, and the naturally accompanying issue of expansion of minor offenses requires the balance of the law of exemption. Jurists need to exert the inhibitory effect of the “proviso” clause on the current large number of minor offense behaviors to control the standard of admission, promote the application of the “proviso” clause’s exemption function, and dare to exonerate minor offense behaviors that meet the “proviso” provision of “significant and obvious circumstances with little harm”. In judicial practice, the “proviso” exemption has two modes: in the first mode, it uses “significant and obvious circumstances with little harm” as an excuse to determine that the actor does not basically meet the crime constitution and declares innocence; in the second mode, it assumes that the crime constitutes a crime, but carries out a double judgment of the circumstances and social harmfulness to achieve the exemption. In the first mode, we need to use the “proviso” to define and exclude all possible cases of “presumed knowledge”, while in the second mode, we need to make a distinction between “learning that others are committing crimes” and “knowing that others are engaging in illegal activities” and achieve the “proviso” in which there is little subjective malignancy in the “significant and obvious circumstances”. No matter which mode, at the subjective constitutive requirements level, we need to limit and interpret the “knowing” of light crime constitutive requirements based on the principle of legality and the “proviso” clause, carefully apply the “presumed knowledge” rule, and improve the “presumed knowledge” rule on this basis.