“机场黄金案”评析

发布时间：2018-03-14 02:51

本文选题：盗窃　切入点：侵占　出处：《湖南大学》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：2008年，在深圳机场发生了备受各方关注的机场黄金案，该案主人公梁丽作为深圳机场一名普通的清洁员工，在工作期间“捡”到价值约300万元的黄金。梁丽基于自己清洁工的职责，在机场自己的清洁范围内，对一个小纸箱的处分行为，有可能使她陷入犯罪的深渊，该案中梁丽的行为是犯罪还是一般违法行为？是构成盗窃罪还是构成侵占罪？围绕于此，在司法机关、理论学界和普通民众中引起了激烈的争议，长时间引人关注。产生这些争议的原因是梁丽案件本身具有复杂性以及我国相关法律规定的局限性。从解决实际问题的角度出发，我们在对该案进行分析过程中，首先就研究背景，研究目的，研究内容和方法，，理论与实践意义等几个方面进行了阐述，表明对该案例进行研究和探析的必要性。为了比较客观的分析问题，我们详细介绍了该案的案情经过，公安机关、司法机关处理案件的过程以及最后的处理结果。对该案的几个关键性的争议点进行归纳，包括公安、司法机关的处理意见，法学专家和法律工作者对本案的不同观点以及相关的分析思路。针对梁丽是否主观上有“非法占有目的”，是否符合“秘密窃取”的特征，是否符合侵占罪中“拒不退还或者拒不交出”成立要件，我们通过结合我国法学理论和各种争议学说展开法律分析，我们认为，梁丽的行为不构成盗窃罪，因为在主观上她不存在盗窃罪中的“非法占有目的”，客观上也没有实施“秘密窃取”的行为；梁丽的行为也不构成侵占罪，因为她没有“拒不退还或者拒不交出”黄金首饰。最后，我们通过分析得出结论，梁丽的行为是一种“拾金而昧”的行为，其实就是一般性的违法行为，只能成立民法上不当得利，应当按照有关法律承担民事责任。她的行为虽然有错，但还没有上升到要使用刑法进行处罚的程度。
[Abstract]:In 2008, there was an airport gold case at Shenzhen Airport, in which Liang Li, the hero of the case, was an ordinary cleaning employee at Shenzhen Airport. During her work, she "picked up" some 3 million yuan worth of gold. Liang Li-kee 's duties as a cleaner, in the airport's own cleaning area, the punishment of a small carton may plunge her into the abyss of crime. Is Liang Li's behavior a crime or a general violation of the law in this case? Is it a crime of theft or a crime of embezzlement? Around this, there has been fierce controversy among the judiciary, the academic circle of theory and the general public. These disputes were caused by the complexity of the Liang Li case itself and the limitations of the relevant laws and regulations of our country. From the point of view of solving practical problems, in the course of our analysis of the case, Firstly, this paper expounds the background, purpose, content and method, theoretical and practical significance of the case, and points out the necessity of studying and analyzing the case. We introduced in detail the course of the case, the process of handling the case by the public security organs, the judicial organs and the final outcome. We summarized several key points of dispute in the case, including the opinions of the public security and judicial organs on the handling of the case. Different views of legal experts and legal workers on this case and relevant analysis ideas. As to whether Liang Li has subjectively "illegal possession purpose" and whether it conforms to the characteristics of "secret theft", Whether or not it conforms to the requirements of "refusing to return or refuse to surrender" in the crime of embezzlement, by combining the legal theory of our country with various controversial theories, we believe that Liang Li's behavior does not constitute the crime of larceny. Because subjectively she did not have the "purpose of illegal possession" in the crime of larceny, nor objectively did she carry out the act of "secret theft"; nor did Liang Li's behavior constitute a crime of embezzlement. Because she did not "refuse to return or surrender" gold jewelry. Finally, through analysis, we came to the conclusion that Liang Li's behavior was a kind of "collection of gold and ignorance", which was in fact a general violation of the law. She should bear civil liability in accordance with the relevant laws. Although her behavior is wrong, it has not yet risen to the level of punishment by using criminal law.
【学位授予单位】：湖南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.3;D920.5

【参考文献】