论信用卡诈骗罪刑罚配置之完善

发布时间：2018-04-09 11:30

本文选题：信用卡诈骗　切入点：刑罚配置　出处：《湘潭大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：改革开放以来,信用卡业务发展范围越来越宽广,而信用卡诈骗犯罪也逐渐增加,对市场经济秩序所造成的影响也远远大于最初的状态。我国97年修订的刑法典正式确立信用卡诈骗罪,该罪在大体上继承了1979年刑法规定的诈骗罪的自由刑配置基础上,形成了以犯罪数额与犯罪情节并重的三档刑罚体系,并沿用至今均未有调整。由于信用卡诈骗罪是最高发的金融诈骗犯罪,通过对裁判文书网公布的判决书进行取样统计和分析,该类犯罪人无论是主观恶性还是客观造成的社会危害都并不严重,当初所配置的刑罚与这种犯罪实际并不适应。其中,自由刑方面,通过与其他同类型的罪名进行对比,本罪的自由刑配置明显存在刑种配置缺乏非监禁刑、徒刑期限设置不当、刑档划分不合理等问题,这些立法上的问题既造成了刑罚浪费、又容易导致罪刑不相适应,迫使司法机关变通适用甚至是滥用量刑手段。财产刑方面,本罪所采用的限额制罚金刑配置模式也不完善,集中表现在数额设置不合理、罚金幅度过大、罚金幅度没有与主刑形成合理比值、只能附加适用等方面。这一实行了近20年的刑罚配置之所以存在这些问题,究其根源,还是因为立法者无论是技术层面还是理论层面都没有把握住本罪刑罚配置的关键,在技术层面上存在配刑攀比、唯数额配刑等不科学的刑罚配置方法.在理论层面上缺乏对刑罚理论的深入认识,造成本罪报应论根据和功利论根据皆不充分。刑法的目的是为了保护法益,而刑罚处罚的正当性依据则是行为侵害了法益。基于此,在调整信用卡诈骗罪刑罚配置时,有必要厘清本罪刑罚配置所需遵循的原则,坚持罪刑均衡原则、人道主义原则、刑罚确定性原则、尊重经济发展规律原则和刑罚谦抑性原则。只有严格遵守和贯彻执行以上原则,刑罚的配置才能做到科学且合理。刑罚配置属于立法问题,若是设立的刑罚不公正,其后以此为依据的作出的司法判决更是难以做到公平公正。基于以上原则,完善本罪刑罚配置时就应当采用轻缓化的刑罚方向,在自由刑方面,增设管制刑作为非监禁刑的补充,降低前两档刑罚划分幅度以更好地与缓刑制度对接;在财产刑方面,以倍比罚金制取代当前的限额罚金制,并把必并科制改为其他自由度更高的科处形式,更好地发挥罚金刑的作用。合理的刑罚配置不仅能够减少司法资源,发挥刑罚的最大作用,而且还能提升人民对法律的敬仰,进而严格以法律作为行为准则,促进社会和谐发展。
[Abstract]:Since the reform and opening up, the scope of credit card business development is wider and wider, and the credit card fraud crime is also gradually increasing, the impact on the order of market economy is far greater than the initial state.The revised Criminal Code of China in 1997 formally established the crime of credit card fraud, which, on the basis of a general inheritance of the free penalty allocation of the crime of fraud stipulated in the criminal law of 1979, formed a three-file penalty system with equal emphasis on the amount of the crime and the circumstances of the crime.And has not been adjusted.Because the crime of credit card fraud is the most frequent crime of financial fraud, through the sampling, statistics and analysis of the judgment published by the adjudicative documents network, the social harm caused by this kind of criminal, whether subjective or objective, is not serious.The penalty set up at the beginning was not suitable for this crime.In the aspect of free punishment, by comparing it with other charges of the same type, there are obvious problems in the allocation of free punishment of this crime, such as the lack of non-custodial punishment in the disposition of the punishment, the improper setting of the term of imprisonment, the unreasonable division of the punishment file, etc.These legislative problems not only cause penalty waste, but also lead to incompatibility of crime and punishment, forcing the judicial organs to adapt or even abuse sentencing methods.In the aspect of property penalty, the allocation mode of the capped penalty is not perfect, which mainly shows in the unreasonable setting of amount, the excessive range of fine, the lack of reasonable ratio between the range of fine and the main penalty, and the addition and application of the fine.The reason why this penalty allocation has been implemented for nearly 20 years is that the reason is that the legislators have not grasped the key of the penalty allocation of this crime in either the technical level or the theoretical level, and there is a comparison between the punishment allocation and punishment on the technical level.Only the amount of penalty allocation and other unscientific penalty allocation methods.There is a lack of deep understanding of the theory of penalty on the theoretical level, which results in the inadequacy of both the theory of retribution and the theory of utilitarianism.The purpose of criminal law is to protect interests, and the justification of punishment is that behavior infringes legal interests.Based on this, it is necessary to clarify the principles to be followed when adjusting the penalty allocation of the crime of credit card fraud, to adhere to the principle of balance between crime and punishment, the principle of humanitarianism, and the principle of certainty of penalty.The principle of respecting the law of economic development and the principle of modesty of punishment.Only by strictly observing and carrying out the above principles, can the allocation of penalty be scientific and reasonable.The allocation of penalty is a legislative issue. If the established penalty is unfair, the judicial decision based on it is even more difficult to achieve fairness and justice.Based on the above principles, we should adopt the light penalty direction when we improve the disposition of the penalty of this crime. In the aspect of free punishment, we should add the control penalty as the supplement of the non-custodial punishment, and reduce the range of the former two types of punishment to better connect with the probation system.In the aspect of property penalty, the system of double ratio fine is used to replace the current system of capped fine, and the system of mutual-parallel section is changed into other forms of higher freedom, so as to play a better role in fine punishment.Reasonable penalty allocation can not only reduce the judicial resources, exert the maximum effect of penalty, but also promote the people's respect for the law, and then strictly regard the law as the code of conduct, and promote the harmonious development of the society.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D924.3

【参考文献】