《中华人民共和国刑法修正案（十一）》增加了对非法猎捕、收购、运输、出售陆生野生动物行为予以定罪处罚的条款。此举旨在强化对非法食用陆生野生动物行为的打击力度，但同时在司法实践中也引发了诸多问题。在司法实践中，由于缺乏统一且明确的裁判标准，各地法院在处理相关案件时出现了对相似案件作出不同判决的情况。这种现象不仅影响了司法的公正性，也给法律的统一实施带来了挑战。当前，如何准确理解并妥善适用本罪规定，已成为司法实践中亟待解决的重要问题。司法实践迫切需要寻找一种既能维护法律权威性，又能确保司法公正性的方法，以实现对本罪规定的正确理解和适用。根据罪状的描述，本罪可细化为四个关键的构成要件要素：首先是犯罪对象，即针对的是陆生野生动物；其次是客观行为，涵盖了猎捕、收购、运输和出售四种行为；再次是主观目的，即需具备食用野生动物的目的；最后是情节严重，这是构成犯罪的必要条件之一。在对这四个构成要件要素进行探讨之前，首先应当明确本罪的保护法益。本罪作为侵犯野生动物资源的犯罪，属于破坏环境资源保护罪的范畴。破坏环境资源保护罪的法益内涵对本罪保护法益内涵的确定具有指
导作用。破坏环境资源保护罪的刑事立法理念存在着人类中心主义、生态中心主义、生态人本主义之争。生态人本主义法益观更具有合理性。在生态人本主义法益观的指导下，破坏环境资源保护罪的保护法益既包括人的利益，也包括能够还原为人的利益的生态利益。相应地，结合本罪出台的特殊立法背景和立法目的，本罪的保护法益是复合法益，即无疫病传播风险的公共卫生安全和无疫源风险的生物安全。法益对各构成要件要素的认定具有指导作用。就本罪的犯罪对象而言，《濒危野生动植物种国际贸易公约》附录中的野生动物、人工繁育的野生动物、两栖脊椎类陆生野生动物不能成为本罪的犯罪对象。就两栖脊椎类以外的陆生野生动物而言，应当通过设置黑白名单制度进行区别对待。就本罪的客观行为而言，杀害、伤害行为不宜理解为猎捕行为。运输、收购、出售行为应当具有大规模性、职业性和盈利性质，小规模的、个别的、零散的运输、收购、出售行为对法益造成的危害较低，不宜认定为本罪的客观行为。就主观目的而言，本罪是目的犯，行为人在实施危害行为时主观上是否具有食用目的，对本罪的成立与否起决定性作用。从法益保护的角度出发，食用目的应当限缩为“以为公众食用为目的”，而应当排除“以为个人食用为目的”。同时，为减轻控方的举证责任，对食用目的应予以推定。行为人的职业、当地风俗习惯、预备行为等事实是案件的基础事实，据此可以推定行为人主观上是否有食用目的。对情节的严重程度与否应当考虑形势、背景、作案规模次数、当地风俗习惯等进行判断，且需要符合比例原则的要求。
 

Wild auna and Flora cannot be the criminal object of this crime. For terrestrial wildlife other than amphibious vertebrates, a black-and-white list system should be established to distinguish them. In terms of the objective behavior of this crime, killing and injuring should not be understood as hunting behavior. Transportation, acquisition, and sale activities should have a large-scale, professional, and profit-making nature. Small scale, individual, and scattered transportation, acquisition, and sale activities have lower harm to legal interests and should not be recognized as objective acts of this crime. In terms of subjective purpose, this crime is a purposeful offense, and whether the perpetrator subjectively has the purpose of consumption when committing harmful acts plays a decisive role in the establishment of this crime. From the perspective of protecting legal interests, the purpose of consumption should be limited to "for the public's consumption", and "for personal consumption" should be excluded. At the same time, in order to reduce the burden of proof on the prosecution, the purpose of consumption should be presumed. The occupation, local customs, and preparatory behavior of the perpetrator are the basic facts of the case, and based on this, it can be inferred whether the perpetrator subjectively has a purpose for consumption. The severity of the plot should be judged based on factors such as the situation, background, scale and frequency of the crime, local customs, etc., and must comply with the principle of proportionality