非法方式取回本人所有而为他人占有财物行为的刑法分析

发布时间：2018-03-07 17:19

本文选题：本人财物　切入点：所有权　出处：《山东大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：随着经济的发展,生产方式的转变,财物所有与占有分离的情况越来越多见。在此背景下,非法方式取回他人占有的本人财物行为也越发常见。我国的司法实践中,对于此类案件的定性有其共通之处:以有无索赔行为作为判断有无非法占有目的的标准,以占有人有无实际财产损失作为定性财产犯罪的根据,将非法取回行为与后续索赔行为结合起来整体评价。而在判决理由方面案件之间则有所不同,财产犯罪的保护法益是否包含占有、刑法第91条第2款能否说明刑法保护特殊形式下的占有、本人财物能否成为财产犯罪的行为对象,各个案件的判决对此都有不同的理解。实践中判决理由的不同与矛盾之处是研究所有权人非法取回本人财物这一问题的基础。对于财产犯罪的保护法益,我国理论界存在所有权说、占有说、中间说等三类主要观点,这些观点都有其不够完善的地方。所有权说无法解释针对违禁品财产犯罪的保护法益问题,占有说过分扩大了财产犯罪的保护法益,中间说虽然有着弥补以上两学说缺陷的优势,但是占有价值的认定问题使得其存在着犯罪数额认定方面的巨大困境,这也成为占有说与中间说的严重弱点所在。基于此,本文认为财产犯罪的保护法益首先是所有权,其次是不存在所有权的占有。刑法第91条第2款一直是占有保护学说攻击所有权说的法条依据,对该法条的理解也是司法实践中的矛盾点所在。本文认为该条款规定是我国公有制经济制度的历史产物,是为了肯定公共财产保护在刑法上的优先性,进而确保公有制对私有财产的优越地位,该规定并不具有规范意义,不足以为侵犯财产罪的财产概念提供规范的指引。本人财物上不存在财产犯罪的保护法益,即便是在公权力占有的特别场合下也无法成为财产犯罪的行为对象。基于以上观点的厘清,本文认为在非法占有的场合下,取回本人财物的行为没有法益侵害性不成立财产犯罪。关于不法原因给付物占有的问题,将其分为不法原因委托物与狭义的不法原因给付物,前者的所有权并没有转移,因此给付人非法取回的行为不成立财产犯罪;后者的所有权已经转移给被给付人,因此给付人非法取回的行为成立财产犯罪。在合法占有的场合下,本人非法取回的行为不成立财产犯罪,侵犯其他法益的以其他罪名定罪,不侵犯刑法法益的可由民法、行政法等进行调节,非法取回之后索赔行为或者接受赔偿的行为侵犯他人的财产所有权,具有非法占有的目的,当然成立财产犯罪,根据非法占有目的的产生时间,将非法取回行为分别定性为诈骗罪的预备行为或者不进行刑法上的评价两种情况。
[Abstract]:With the development of economy and the change of production mode, the separation of property ownership and possession is more and more common. The characterization of such cases has something in common: whether there is a claim for compensation as the criterion for judging the purpose of illegal possession, and whether the possessor has actual property losses as the basis for the characterization of the property crime, Combine the illegal recovery act with the subsequent claim behavior to evaluate the whole. But in the case of the judgment reason, there is a difference between the case, whether the property crime protection law interest includes possession, Whether the second paragraph of Article 91 of the Criminal Law can explain whether the criminal law protects the possession of special forms, whether one's property becomes the object of the property crime, The difference and contradiction of the reasons of judgment in practice is the basis of studying the problem of the owner illegally retrieving his own property. There are three kinds of main viewpoints in the theoretical circle of our country, such as ownership theory, possession theory, intermediate theory and so on. These viewpoints all have their imperfections. The ownership theory cannot explain the problem of the protection law benefit against the crime of contraband property. Possession theory has expanded the law benefit of property crime too much. Although the intermediate theory has the advantage of making up the defects of the above two theories, the problem of determining the value of possession makes it have a huge dilemma in identifying the amount of crime. This also becomes the serious weakness of the possession theory and the intermediate theory. Based on this, this paper holds that the protection benefit of property crime is first and foremost ownership. Secondly, there is no possession of ownership. Article 91, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Law has always been the basis of the doctrine of possession protection to attack the doctrine of ownership. The understanding of this article is also a contradiction in judicial practice. This article holds that this provision is the historical product of China's public ownership economic system, and is in order to affirm the priority of the protection of public property in the criminal law. Thus ensuring the superior position of public ownership over private property, this provision does not have normative significance and is not sufficient to provide normative guidance for the concept of property against property crimes. There is no interest in the protection of property crimes in one's own property. Even in the special situation of public power possession can not be the object of property crime. Based on the above points of view, this paper argues that in the case of illegal possession, The act of retrieving one's own property has no legal interests against the crime of unsubstantiated property. Regarding the problem of possession of the illegal cause of giving and paying, it is divided into the illegal reason entrustment and the narrow sense of the illegal reason giving, the former's ownership has not been transferred, Therefore, the act of illegally retrieving property by the payer does not constitute a crime of property; the ownership of the latter has been transferred to the payee, so that the act of illegally retrieving the property by the payer establishes the crime of property. Those who illegally take back the property and violate other legal interests may be convicted of other crimes, and those who do not violate the criminal law may be regulated by civil law, administrative law, etc. The act of claiming or accepting compensation after an illegal acquisition infringes upon the property ownership of another person and has the purpose of illegal possession. Of course, the crime of property is established, and according to the time when the purpose of illegal possession arises, The illegal recovery behavior is classified as the preparatory act of the crime of fraud or not appraised in the criminal law.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D924.3

【相似文献】