混合主体共同贪污定性研究

发布时间：2018-04-18 11:05

本文选题：混合主体 + 共同贪污　；参考：《华侨大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：我国刑法对贪污罪的立法比较完善，从1951的《中华人民共和国惩治贪污条例》到1979年刑法，直到1997年刑法，有关贪污罪的立法规定的比较详尽。有关贪污罪法律适用的司法解释更是丰富。总体上构筑了惩治贪污犯罪的严密法网。但是，不能不关注的问题是混合主体共同贪污的定性问题是我国贪污罪立法与司法上的一个难题，尤其是刑法第382条第3款规定的“与前两款所列人员勾结，伙同贪污的，以共犯论处”规范具有模糊性。最高法院《关于审理贪污、职务侵占案件如何认定共同犯罪几个问题的解释》第3条的规定：“公司、企业或者其他单位中，不具有国家工作人员身份的人与国家工作人员勾结，分别利用各自的职务便利，共同将本单位财物非法占为己有的，按照主犯的犯罪性质定罪。”更是使得混合主体共同贪污行为定性难点更显突出。例如，其使得身份与共犯的关系更为复杂。本文通过对贪污罪侵害的法益的考察，尤其是通过借鉴境外贪污罪立法与司法实践的分析与比较，认为应以法益分类为基础，作为共同贪污行为定性的主要依据，适当扩张贪污罪正犯的主体范围，较好地解决现行立法与司法实践上的混合主体共同贪污定性困境的难题。文章以混合主体共同贪污的定性为视角，比较全面解析了刑法有关共同贪污的主体规定，也指出了解决现行贪污罪问题的一些对策与建议。论文第一章为我国贪污罪共同犯罪的规定及其特点。论文详细地介绍了贪污罪共同犯罪的有关规定和贪污罪的共犯类型，分析了贪污罪共犯的特点，指出贪污罪的特殊性表现为犯罪主体混杂、身份与共犯的关系更为复杂以及“伙同贪污，以共犯论”的规范含义有待厘清。论文着重指出了混合主体共同贪污犯罪类型的复杂性。论文第二章为混合主体共同贪污定性的观点评析。本章介绍了国内关于混合主体共同贪污犯罪定性问题的几种观点，并且深入分析这些观点之中的合理之处以及存在的问题，指出有关的理论观点并没有为混合主体共同贪污的定性提供较为合理的解释原理。论文第三章为域外共同贪污犯罪的立法例和理论观点考察。论文介绍了德国、日本和台湾地区关于处理混合主体共同贪污犯罪的法律根据和理论学说，并对其加以分析评价，在此基础上，，总结了域外共同贪污犯罪的定性特点，即以法益分类为基础确定共同犯罪性质和贪污罪主体范围具有扩张趋势，这些特点和趋势无疑值得我国借鉴。论文第四章为我国共同贪污犯罪定性的反思与建议。论文梳理了对于我国混合主体共同贪污犯罪定性的思路，反思贪污罪共犯处理难题，提出共同贪污定性应以公共财产作为贪污罪的侵害客体，以正犯作为共同贪污的主犯，适当扩张贪污罪的主体范围。通过比较与分析，本文初步梳理了混合主体共同贪污犯罪立法的相关规定，从理论层面探索，解决贪污罪共同犯罪处理难题的方案。但作者的观点还有待于理论与实践的进一步检视。
[Abstract]:China's criminal law on the crime of corruption legislation is perfect, "People's Republic of China from 1951 to 1979 of the regulations on the punishment of corruption and criminal law, criminal law until 1997, relevant provisions of the crime of corruption legislation in detail. Judicial interpretation of the law applicable to the crime of corruption is more abundant. In general it has constructed the stringent law to punish the crime of corruption. However, not concern is the qualitative problems mixed subject joint corruption is a problem of our country's legislation and judicial corruption, especially the provisions of the third paragraph of article 382nd of the criminal law" and the person mentioned in the preceding two paragraphs together with collusion, corruption, to the accomplice "standard is fuzzy. The Supreme Court of the trial of corruption, embezzlement cases how to identify several common crime explanations of the third stipulation:" companies, enterprises or other units in the country, and it is not work the status of national staff Staff collusion, respectively use their positions to facilitate, to the unit of property illegally for himself, according to the nature of the crime of conviction. "Is the principal mixed subject joint corruption qualitative difficulties more prominent. For example, the relationship between identity and accomplice is more complex.
In this paper, through the investigation of violation of the law benefit of the crime of corruption, especially through the analysis and comparison of foreign legislation and judicial practice of the crime of corruption, that should be the basis for the classification of legal interest, as the main basis of qualitative joint corruption, embezzlement crime the appropriate expansion of the scope of subject, to solve the problem of the current legislative and judicial mixed subject the practice of the joint corruption dilemma. Based on the qualitative qualitative mixed subject joint corruption from the perspective of the comprehensive analysis of the relevant provisions of the criminal law common corruption, also points out some countermeasures and suggestions to solve the current problem of corruption crime.
In the first chapter, provisions for the crime of corruption crime and its characteristics. This paper introduces the relevant provisions of the crime of corruption crime and corruption crime types, analyzes the characteristics of embezzlement crime, the crime of corruption that special performance for the subject of crime and accomplice in a mixed relationship is more complicated and "together with corruption, normative meaning to accomplice theory" to be clarified. This paper pointed out that the complexity of mixed subject joint corruption crime types.
The second chapter is the analysis of the mixed subject joint corruption qualitative view. This chapter introduces several opinions about mixed subject joint corruption crime qualitative issues of domestic, and in-depth analysis of shortcomings of these ideas and the existing problems, points out the related theory viewpoint and no qualitative explanation for the mixed subject joint corruption principle reasonable offer.
The third chapter is the foreign joint corruption crime legislation and theoretical perspective. This paper introduces Germany, Japan and Taiwan regions on the treatment of mixed subject joint corruption crime according to law and theory, and the analysis and evaluation, on this basis, summarizes the qualitative characteristics of foreign joint corruption crime, namely legal interest classification to determine the nature of joint crime and corruption crime has the trend of expansion, the characteristics and the trend is worthy of our reference.
The fourth chapter is the reflection and suggestion of our joint corruption crime. This paper reviews the qualitative for the mixed subject of China's joint corruption crime qualitative thinking, reflection of accomplice of corruption crime problem, put forward the common qualitative corruption should be the public property as the crime of corruption against the object, the principal as principal joint corruption, the appropriate expansion of the crime of corruption the scope of the subject.
Through comparison and analysis, this paper preliminarily combed the relevant provisions of the legislation of the joint corruption crime of the mixed main body, and explored the solution to solve the problem of the joint crime of corruption crime from the theoretical level. But the author's viewpoint still needs further inspection of theory and practice.

【学位授予单位】：华侨大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.392

【参考文献】