李秋天组装销售电梯案分析

发布时间：2018-03-05 07:19

本文选题：电梯　切入点：生产、销售伪劣产品罪　出处：《西南政法大学》2011年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：近期我国各地电梯安全事故频发,国家一方面加强了电梯的维护和检修,另一方面也加大了对电梯质量的监督力度。电梯安全是公共安全的重要组成部分,电梯事故的发生也会扰乱人民群众正常的生产、生活秩序,而诱发事故的原因多种多样,停电、使用不当、质量问题等都有可能。如果电梯存在质量问题,除了涉及民法中的产品质量瑕疵或缺陷之外,还可能涉及生产、销售伪劣产品、非法经营等刑事犯罪,而由于在这些罪名之间存在着交叉领域,使得具体案件的认定颇具难度。本文由前几年发生的一起涉及电梯质量的刑事案件即“李秋天组装销售电梯案”引出本案是否应被定罪及应定何罪的问题,结合刑法语境下国家规定的划分标准,追认的适用范围、罪刑法定原则下空白罪状存在的合理性,以及生产、销售伪劣产品罪、以危险方法危害公共安全罪、非法经营罪等罪的犯罪构成,采用案例分析与法理分析相结合的方法就争议问题分别进行了分析,论证了不构成犯罪观点的错误性,得出了本案应定非法经营罪的最终结论。并希望经过本案的分析,梳理这几个罪名之间的区别,可以为日后相关案件的司法认定提供帮助。本文共分为三个部分。第一部分为案情简介。简要介绍了李秋天组装销售电梯案件始末以及司法机关对案件的处理结果。第二部分为李秋天案分歧意见的归纳总结。在本案中,就犯罪嫌疑人李秋天的行为是否构成犯罪以及构成何罪存在广泛争议,主要集中在生产销售伪劣产品罪、以危险方法危害公共安全罪、非法经营罪这三个罪名之间。第三部分是本文的重点,即结合犯罪构成理论对案件进行法理分析。首先立足案件本身论证了不构成犯罪观点的错误性,其次针对本文第二部分列明争议的三个罪名进行逐个分析,提出了李秋天的行为不是生产、销售伪劣产品,也不是以危险方法危害公共安全,而是非法经营,扰乱市场经济秩序,应以非法经营罪论处的意见。
[Abstract]:Recently, elevator safety accidents have occurred frequently in various parts of our country. On the one hand, the state has strengthened the maintenance and maintenance of elevators, on the other hand, it has also increased its supervision of elevator quality. Elevator safety is an important part of public safety. The occurrence of elevator accidents will also disturb the normal production and living order of the people, and the causes of the accidents may vary, such as power outages, improper use, quality problems, etc. If there are quality problems in the elevators, In addition to the product quality defects or defects in the civil law, it may also involve the production, sale of fake and inferior products, illegal operation and other criminal offences, but due to the existence of overlapping fields between these charges, it is quite difficult to identify specific cases. In this paper, a criminal case involving elevator quality occurred in the past few years, that is, "Li Qiu assembling and selling Elevator case", leads to the question of whether this case should be convicted and what kind of offence should be convicted, combined with the standard of division stipulated by the state in the context of criminal law. The scope of application of the ratification, the reasonableness of the existence of blank crime under the principle of prescribed punishment for a crime, the crime of producing and selling fake and inferior products, the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means, the crime of illegal operation, etc. Using the method of case analysis and legal theory analysis, this paper analyzes the dispute separately, demonstrates the error of the view that does not constitute a crime, and draws the final conclusion that the case should be convicted of the crime of illegal business operation, and hopes to pass through the analysis of this case. Combing the differences between these charges can provide help for judicial determination of related cases in the future. This article is divided into three parts. The first part is the brief case of the case. The second part is the summary of different opinions in the Li Qiu case. In this case, there are extensive disputes on whether the behavior of the suspect Li Qiu constitutes a crime and what kind of crime, which is mainly focused on the crime of producing and selling fake and inferior products. Between the three crimes of endangering public safety by dangerous means and illegal operation. The third part is the focus of this paper, that is, combining the theory of criminal constitution to analyze the legal theory of cases. Firstly, based on the case itself, it demonstrates the error of the view that does not constitute a crime. Secondly, according to the three controversial charges listed in the second part of this article, it is pointed out that Li Qiu's behavior is not to produce, sell fake or inferior products, nor to endanger public safety by dangerous means, but to operate illegally. Disturbing the order of market economy, should be treated as illegal operation crime opinion.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D924.3;D920.5

【参考文献】