“梁丽拾金案”行为性质研究

发布时间：2018-04-29 23:22

本文选题：梁丽 + 盗窃　；参考：《西南政法大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：近年来，“躲猫猫”事件、“杭州飙车案”、“罗彩霞案”、“邓玉娇案”等争议性案件引起社会广泛关注，不断冲激着社会公众的道德直觉的同时，也给司法界和法学界提出了许多问题。本文梁丽拾金案为例，从不同的罪名进行法律分析，并对相关问题进行了阐述，提出自己的一些看法。本论文分为三个部分进行论述：第一部分，对于案件情况进行简要的介绍，再分别说明本案的处理结果和不同的定性意见，包括各类法律人士对本案的所持的不同观点；梁丽的行为构成何罪；司法机关对案件处理过程中的波折及本案最终的司法处理结果。第二部分，结合案例，从刑法理论的角度分析、探讨案件的相关问题。在盗窃罪中着重分析了非法占有的目的、秘密窃取行为和盗窃对象三个因素,认为：梁丽不具备盗窃罪的非法占有的目的，其行为也不属于秘密窃取，纸箱不能成为盗窃罪的犯罪对象，因此，梁丽不构成盗窃罪；在侵占罪中着重分析了非法占有的目的、拒不返还行为和侵占对象三个因素，认为：虽然梁丽的行为具有侵占罪的非法占有目的，且纸箱及其内财物可以作为侵占罪的犯罪对象，但是，梁丽并不存在拒不返还的客观行为，因此，梁丽不构成侵占罪；在职务侵占罪中着重分析了利用职务之便和单位财物这两个因素，认为：梁丽的行为不符合利用职务之便的要求，其所占有的纸箱也不属于单位财物，，因此，梁丽不构成职务侵占罪。最后，从犯罪本质特征的角度，进行了梁丽案的无罪分析，认为：梁丽的行为要进行刑事处罚必须依据明确的法律规定，在没有明确的法律规定将此类行为认定为犯罪行为的情况下，梁丽的行为当然不构成犯罪。第三部分，通过梁丽案的启示，针对案件办理过程中，网络媒体的作用与影响，提出网络媒体与司法独立的矛盾与配合。
[Abstract]:In recent years, controversial cases such as the "hide and seek cat" incident, the "Hangzhou car racing case", the "Luo Caixia case" and the "Deng Yujiao case" have aroused widespread concern in the society and constantly impelled the moral intuition of the public. It also raises a lot of questions to the judicial and legal circles. In this paper, Liang Li's case of collecting gold is taken as an example, the legal analysis is made from different charges, and the related problems are expounded, and some views are put forward. This paper is divided into three parts: The first part is a brief introduction of the case, and then explains the results of the case and different qualitative opinions, including the different views of various legal personages on the case; what crime does Liang Li's behavior constitute? The twists and turns of the judicial organs in the course of handling the case and the final judicial outcome of the case. The second part, combined with cases, from the point of view of the theory of criminal law, to explore the relevant issues of cases. In the larceny, the author analyzes the purpose of illegal possession, the act of secret theft and the object of theft. It is concluded that Liang Li does not possess the purpose of illegal possession of theft, nor does her behavior belong to secret theft. Carton can not be the object of larceny, therefore, Liang Li does not constitute the crime of larceny; in the crime of embezzlement, the purpose of illegal possession is emphatically analyzed, the act of refusing to return and the object of embezzlement are three factors. It is concluded that although Liang Li's behavior has the purpose of illegal possession of the crime of embezzlement, and the carton and its property can be regarded as the object of the crime of embezzlement, Liang Li does not have the objective act of refusing to return, therefore, Liang Li does not constitute the crime of embezzlement; In the crime of duty embezzlement, the author emphatically analyzes the two factors of utilizing duty convenience and unit property. It is concluded that Liang Li's behavior does not conform to the requirement of utilizing duty convenience, and the carton he occupies does not belong to unit property. Liang Li does not constitute a crime of duty embezzlement. Finally, from the point of view of the essential characteristics of the crime, the author analyzes the innocence of Liang Li's case, and concludes that the criminal punishment of Liang Li's behavior must be based on the clear legal provisions. Liang Li's behavior does not constitute a crime in the absence of a clear legal provision for such conduct to be criminalized. The third part, through the enlightenment of Liangli case, puts forward the contradiction and cooperation between network media and judicial independence in view of the role and influence of network media in the course of handling cases.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D924.35;D920.5

【参考文献】