论诱价概念在诈骗罪中的独立性价值

发布时间：2018-07-11 14:33

本文选题：犯罪成本 + 局限性　；参考：《中国刑事法杂志》2012年08期

【摘要】：司法实务中,行为人为实施诈骗而向被害人提供的财物一般被称为犯罪成本,在理论界和实务界,对于诈骗罪中犯罪数额是否扣除犯罪成本问题一直存在着较大的争议。犯罪成本从其概念内涵来看,在诈骗罪中运用是不确切的,这也是产生分歧的主要原因所在。用"诱价"一词来替代犯罪成本,可避免由于概念本身的问题所产生的分歧。作为诈骗罪中独有的概念,诱价定义可以直接体现出诈骗罪区别于其他财产犯罪的本质特征,并为我们研究诈骗罪提供一个崭新的视角。在诈骗罪认定过程中,应当坚持以扣除诱价之后被害人的净财富损失作为评判是否存在实质财产损害的实体标准,这既是刑法谦抑之下的结论,也是司法实践的需要。
[Abstract]:In judicial practice, the property provided by the perpetrator to the victim for the purpose of fraud is generally referred to as the cost of crime. In the theoretical and practical circles, there has been a great dispute about whether the amount of the crime in the crime of fraud is deducted from the cost of the crime. From its concept connotation, the application of crime cost in the crime of fraud is imprecise, which is also the main reason for the difference. Replacing the cost of crime with the word "inductive price" can avoid differences arising from the problem of the concept itself. As a unique concept in the crime of fraud, the definition of induced price can directly reflect the essential characteristics of the crime of fraud and other property crimes, and provide a new perspective for us to study the crime of fraud. In the process of determining the crime of fraud, the net wealth loss of the victim after deducting the inducement price should be regarded as the substantive standard to judge the existence of substantial property damage, which is not only the conclusion under the restraint of criminal law, but also the need of judicial practice.
【作者单位】：江苏省扬州市广陵区人民检察院;
【分类号】：D924.3;D920.5

【共引文献】