盗窃罪秘密性的认定角度

发布时间：2018-04-04 22:24

本文选题：盗窃罪　切入点：秘密性　出处：《西南财经大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：我国学界对盗窃罪已经有很深入的以及很广泛的研究,其中对盗窃罪的研究的内容包括盗窃罪的各个构成要件、盗窃罪与其他罪的区别、也有分析盗窃罪的秘密取财行为和公然取财行为等内容,但是笔者没有发现专门对于盗窃罪秘密性的认定角度的进行分析的文章。我国法律上对盗窃罪秘密性的认定是通过主观要件是实现的,但是也存在实践中在同一个案例与被害人和社会一般人认定角度产生冲突的结果。因此,论文的研究目的是通过分析认定盗窃罪秘密性的不同角度,分析以行为人角度在体系内认定的秘密性的合理性和优越性,并且分析在行为人认定的角度下是否存在缺陷。论文分为引言、正文两大部分,其中正文部分分为三章。论文的引言主要引用盗窃罪的法律规定以及司法解释,肯定了秘密性的存在,然后通过案例中引导出论文的论题。正文第一章是关于盗窃罪以及盗窃罪的秘密性。在这一章中首先强调了本篇论文仅在现行刑法下讨论盗窃罪的一般形态的构成要件,其次对其他国家或地区的法律中对盗窃罪是否解释为秘密窃取或者将秘密窃取作为盗窃罪的本质特征,分析其他国家和地区的法律能否通过比较的方法解读我国的盗窃罪的秘密性,最后分析了秘密窃取的主观表现和客观表现以及对一些学者不同意将秘密性作为盗窃罪本质特征的理由分析。第二章的主要内容是犯罪主观认定角度。在这一部分中首先引导出在犯罪论体系内区分出的两种标准——事实判断和价值判断,对犯罪主观认定角度作出判断。其次结合事实判断和价值判断两种标准,分析三类主体对犯罪主观认定角度的依据。最后,犯罪构成无法脱离主客观相统一原则,犯罪主观认定中也应当遵循这一原则。第三章的内容是盗窃罪秘密性的认定角度。以行为人的认定角度、被害人的认定角度以及社会一般人的认定角度对盗窃罪秘密性认定的内容,再对比这几个认定角度在体系内的合理性和可行性,分析不同认定角度之间的缺陷,进而得出坚持行为人的主观认定的选择。本文通过对盗窃罪秘密性的认定角度进行分析,虽然主观的认定角度存在其他的可能性,但是本文的结论是应当坚持以行为人角度对秘密性进行认定,对于盗窃罪认定中出现的缺陷,如果在现行刑法下可以解决的,那么通过现行刑法法律规定与法律原则进行解决,但是如果在现行刑法下不可以解决的,那么通过建立通过立法或者对司法解释进行修订加以解决。
[Abstract]:There has been a deep and extensive study on the crime of larceny in the academic circles of our country. Among them, the contents of the study on the crime of larceny include the constituent elements of the crime of larceny, the difference between the crime of larceny and other crimes.There is also an analysis of the theft of the secret behavior and openly take the content of the property, but the author did not find a special for the theft of the secret of the perspective of the analysis of the article.In our country, the secrecy of larceny is recognized through subjective elements, but there is also the result of conflict between the same case and the recognition of the victim and the general person in the society in practice.The paper is divided into introduction, two parts of the text, in which the text is divided into three chapters.The introduction of this paper mainly refers to the legal provisions of theft and judicial interpretation, affirms the existence of secrecy, and then leads the thesis through cases.The first chapter is about larceny and the secrecy of larceny.In this chapter, it is emphasized that this paper only discusses the constitutive elements of the general form of larceny under the current criminal law.Secondly, whether the crime of theft is interpreted as secret theft in the laws of other countries or regions, or whether secret theft is regarded as the essential characteristic of the crime of larceny,Whether the laws of other countries and regions can interpret the secrecy of larceny in our country through comparative methods,Finally, it analyzes the subjective and objective manifestations of secret theft and the reasons why some scholars do not agree to regard secrecy as the essential characteristic of theft.The main content of the second chapter is the angle of subjective determination of crime.In this part, two kinds of standards-fact judgment and value judgment, which are distinguished in the system of crime theory, are first introduced, and the judgment of subjective cognizance of crime is made.Secondly, combining the two standards of fact judgment and value judgment, the paper analyzes the basis of the subjective cognizance of the three kinds of subjects.Finally, the constitution of crime can not be separated from the principle of unity of subjectivity and objectivity, and this principle should be followed in subjective determination of crime.The content of the third chapter is the angle of ascertaining the secrecy of larceny.From the perspective of the actor, the victim and the general public, the author compares the rationality and feasibility of the identification in the system.This paper analyzes the defects between different recognition angles, and then obtains the choice of the subjective identification of the persisting actor.Though there are other possibilities in subjective cognizance, the conclusion of this paper is that we should insist on the identification of secrecy from the angle of the perpetrator.For the defects in the identification of the crime of larceny, if they can be solved under the existing criminal law, then they can be solved through the legal provisions and principles of the existing criminal law, but if they cannot be solved under the existing criminal law,Then through the establishment of legislation or judicial interpretation of the amendment to be resolved.
【学位授予单位】：西南财经大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.35

【参考文献】