伪证罪法益及其构成要件的法益解释

在我国刑法立法上，伪证罪的法益已经从公民人身权利向国家司法利益转变。刑法理论界存在的“复杂法益说”观点是旧刑法“人身权利说”的变种。伪证罪侵害的具体法益应当理解为“言词证据的司法运用”。据此，对伪证罪的构成要件可以作如下解释：在主体要件方面，将被害人解释为伪证罪的主体有其实质合理性，犯罪嫌疑人、刑事被告人在一定条件下可以构成伪证罪的主体。担任言词证据记录工作的人故意做虚假记录的应当构成伪证罪；在主观要件方面。刑法对伪证罪设定的目的要求并不符合伪证罪的法益需要；在客观要件方面，关于伪证行为中“虚假”的认定，“客观说”更符合伪证罪的保护法益，刑法将伪证罪限定在刑事诉讼中，不符合伪证罪的法益内容。

The Legal Interests of Perjury and Its Constitutive Elements Interpretation

The legal interests of perjury have changed from citizen’s personal rights to state’s judicial interests in Chinese criminal legislation. The legal interests of perjury can be comprehended in detail as “the judicial applying of wordage evidence”. Regarding the victims as one of the subjects of perjury is rational. Suspects and defendants can also be the subjects of perjury in several conditions. Anyone who records wordage evidence would commit perjury if he makes a false record intentionally. The purpose of perjury that is provided by criminal law does not meet with the requirement of the legal interests of perjury. In accord with these legal interests, “objective theory” is more reasonable on the cognizance of “false”. It is unreasonable that the criminal law limits perjury in criminal proceedings.