占有不是财产犯罪的法益

发布时间：2018-01-24 01:21

本文关键词： 所有权占有财产犯罪法益构成要件　出处：《法律科学(西北政法大学学报)》2015年03期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：占有不是财产犯罪的法益。一方面,占有不是普遍存在于所有财产犯罪中的概念。财产的范围包括物和利益,而占有对象只能是有体物而不能是利益。另一方面,占有也不是盗窃罪的法益。占有仅仅是一个在理论上构建出来的隐性构成要件要素,将其缺乏根据地提升为法益,并以此判断盗窃罪成立与否的做法,混淆了构成要件要素与法益,用实质性的法益思考替代了构成要件检验。破坏占有本身并不必然具有违法性,因而占有不可能成为一个独立的保护对象。关于"被害人"的刑法规定以及关于"家庭成员或者近亲属"的司法解释,只适用于财物所有人而不适用于占有人。承认占有是法益会与刑法对所有权人的保护出现冲突。在司法实践中,窃取他人占有的本人财物不构成盗窃罪,能够得到判例传统的支持。
[Abstract]:Possession is not the legal benefit of property crime. On the one hand, possession is not a universal concept in all property crimes. The scope of property includes things and interests. On the other hand, possession is not the legal benefit of larceny. Possession is only a tacit constitutive element constructed in theory. To promote its lack of base area into legal interests, and to judge the establishment of larceny or not, confusing the elements of elements and legal interests. Substantive thinking of legal interests has replaced the test of constitutive elements. Destruction of possession itself does not necessarily have the illegality. Therefore possession can not become an independent object of protection. The criminal law provisions on "victims" and the judicial interpretation of "family members or close relatives". It is only applicable to the owner of the property but not to the possessor. Recognizing possession is the conflict between the legal interests and the protection of the owner of the criminal law. In judicial practice, the theft of one's own property does not constitute the crime of larceny. Can be supported by the tradition of precedents.
【作者单位】：北京大学法学院;
【分类号】：D924.3
【正文快照】： 在我国目前的刑法理论研究及司法实践中,“占有”一词常常出现在三种不同的语境下,其涵义以及相应的研究脉络也各不相同。第一种是非法占有目的中的“占有”,第二种是作为盗窃罪等财物犯罪之保护法益的“占有”,第三种则是用于解释盗窃罪等财物犯罪之客观构成要件的“占有”。

【参考文献】