平和窃取说之否定

发布时间：2018-04-15 09:37

本文选题：平和窃取说 + 秘密窃取说　；参考：《华东政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：我国传统刑法理论主张“秘密窃取”是盗窃罪客观要件的本质特征，同时也是盗窃罪区别其它财产犯罪的重要标志。但是通说在论述秘密窃取观点时没有正确处理主观秘密性和客观秘密性的关系，由此招致了批评。部分学者在借鉴德日等国刑法理论的基础上，提出了平和窃取说，对盗窃罪进行了重新的定义，以及对盗窃罪与其他财产犯罪的界限进行了新的界定，同时对秘密窃取说进行了全面批判。但是，平和窃取说超出国民预测能力，违背了罪刑法定的基本原则；未考虑我国刑罚体系设置的合理性；同时该理论具有自身无法克服的理论缺陷，对于秘密窃取说的批判也缺乏充足的理由和依据。因此，在目前秘密窃取说仍为我国刑法理论界和实务界乃至广大国民所广泛接受的现实下，平和窃取说无法取代秘密窃取说成为我国盗窃罪的通说观点。为了进一步维护和坚持秘密窃取说的通说观点，有必要对平和窃取说的观点进行批判，对该学说对通说观点所提出的批判进行回应和反驳，以对秘密窃取理论进行坚守和维护。本文主要以对平和窃取说进行较全面的批判，并对该学说对秘密窃取说所提的批判进行回应和反驳为主要内容，进而对秘密窃取说进行澄清和维护。本文主要共分为三个章节，各章主要内容如下：第一章主要是对平和窃取说进行介绍，从平和窃取说提出的背景、主要观点、理论内容以及所秉持的理论依据和实践依据等方面，对平和窃取说进行较详细、全面的剖析。第二章内容是对平和窃取说的批判与反驳。平和窃取说超出国民预测可能性，违背刑法罪刑法定的基本原则；未考虑我国刑罚体系设置的合理性；关于盗窃罪行为方式的认定也不合理；同时，平和窃取论者在运用刑法比较解释方法进行论述时出现偏差，因此，平和窃取说并不能代替秘密窃取说成为我国盗窃罪的通说观点。第三章主要内容是通过对平和窃取说所提批判的回应与反驳的方式对秘密窃取说进行澄清和维护。首先介绍了平和窃取说对于秘密窃取说的批判，平和窃取说主要从秘密窃取说混淆了主观要素与客观要素的区别、违背了主客观相一致原则、会不当扩大抢劫罪的范围以及容易导致某些情况下无法确定一些行为的性质等方面进行了批判。然后，针对平和窃取说的批判，文章进行了有针对性的回应和反批判，指出平和窃取说批判的不合理性，从而为秘密窃取说进行正本清源。
[Abstract]:The traditional criminal law theory of our country holds that "secret theft" is the essential feature of objective elements of larceny, and it is also an important symbol for the theft to distinguish other property crimes.However, the general theory does not correctly deal with the relationship between subjective secrecy and objective secrecy when discussing the viewpoint of secret theft, which leads to criticism.Based on the theory of criminal law of Germany and Japan, some scholars put forward the theory of peaceful theft, redefined the crime of larceny, and made a new definition of the boundary between theft and other property crimes.At the same time, the theory of secret theft is comprehensively criticized.However, the theory of peaceful theft exceeds the people's ability to predict, violates the basic principle of the legality of a crime, does not consider the rationality of the setting of our country's penalty system, and at the same time, the theory has its own theoretical defects that cannot be overcome.The criticism of secret theft also lacks sufficient reason and basis.Therefore, in the reality that the secret theft theory is still widely accepted by the criminal law theorists and practitioners and even the broad masses of people in our country, the theory of peaceful theft cannot replace the secret theft theory as the general view of theft in our country.In order to further maintain and adhere to the general viewpoint of secret theft, it is necessary to criticize the viewpoint of peaceful theft, to respond to and refute the criticism put forward by the theory, in order to uphold and maintain the theory of secret theft.The main content of this paper is to criticize the theory of peaceful theft in a comprehensive way, and to respond to and refute the criticism of the theory of secret theft, and then to clarify and maintain the theory of secret theft.This paper is divided into three chapters, the main content of each chapter is as follows:The first chapter mainly introduces the theory of peaceful theft, from the background, the main point of view, the theoretical content, the theoretical basis and the practical basis, etc., to the theory of peace theft in detail, comprehensive analysis.The second chapter is the criticism and refutation of the theory of stealing peace.The theory of peaceful theft exceeds the possibility of national prediction and violates the basic principle of criminal law prescribed by criminal law; it does not take into account the rationality of the setting up of our country's penalty system; the determination of the behavior mode of theft is also unreasonable; at the same time,There is a deviation in the use of comparative interpretation of criminal law. Therefore, the theory of peaceful theft can not replace the theory of secret theft as the general view of theft in our country.The third chapter clarifies and maintains the theory of secret theft by responding to the criticism and refuting it.First of all, it introduces the criticism of the theory of peaceful theft for secret theft, which mainly confuses the difference between subjective and objective elements from secret theft, and violates the principle of consistency between subjectivity and objectivity.The scope of the crime of robbery may be enlarged and the nature of some acts can not be determined under certain circumstances.Then, in view of the criticism of the theory of peaceful theft, the article makes a targeted response and counter-criticism, pointing out the irrationality of the criticism of the theory of peaceful theft, so as to clear the root of the theory of secret theft.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.3

【参考文献】