论实质解释视域下扒窃犯罪构成要件

发布时间：2018-04-18 21:45

本文选题：实质解释 + 扒窃　；参考：《海南大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：《刑法修正案(八)》与“两高”《关于办理盗窃刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》(2013年)对“扒窃”的规定简单,解释不明,需要进一步解释。在我国刑法语境下,对“扒窃”规定的解释存在实质解释与形式解释两种路径。实质解释与形式解释相比较,根本的不同在于理念与“诠释学”视角。在我国立法“定性+定量”模式下,形式解释“扒窃”存在严重弊端,而实质解释“扒窃”更具合理性。实质解释“扒窃”应在刑法谦抑、“善”等理念引导下,在文理解释的限度内,采取体系解释、历史解释、目的解释等方法进行；同时,受刑法第13条“但书”规制,任何犯罪成立都需要在“量”上达到一定危害程度,而传统的四要件、德日三阶层均不能契合这一规范要求,所以借鉴陈兴良教授“罪体+罪责+罪量”三要件思路,实质解释扒窃可以在“定性+定量”犯罪论体系内进行。其中“定性”解决的是行为该当性、违法性(有无)、有责性(有无)问题,“定量”回答的是危害程度是否“应受刑罚惩罚”。实质解释“扒窃”,可以得出“扒窃”入刑是为了保护人民财产、规避潜在的人身危害、增强人民出行安全感的结论,即立法目的；同时,也能找到“扒窃”与“抢夺”的界线。根据立法目的与体系协调要求,“扒窃”以“非法占有目的”必要,其中,“公共场所”应以“传播说”为界定标准,“随身携带物”以“随时可能支配说”为确定准则,“手段”则以“平和说”认定为宜。对“定量”要件的判断是法定范围的,建立在社会主流伦理价值与普遍经验基础上的、概括的、个体的判断,主要从违法程度与有责程度两方面进行。
[Abstract]:"Criminal Law Amendment (8) > and" two High level "< explanation on some problems of applicable Law in handling Criminal case of Theft" (2013) the stipulation of "pickpocketing" is simple, the interpretation is unclear, and needs further explanation.In the context of criminal law of our country, there are two ways to interpret the "pickpocket" regulation: substantive interpretation and formal interpretation.The fundamental difference between substantive interpretation and formal interpretation lies in the perspective of concept and hermeneutics.In the mode of "qualitative and quantitative" legislation in our country, there are serious disadvantages in the formal interpretation of "pickpocketing", but it is more reasonable to explain "pickpocketing" in essence.Under the guidance of criminal law, "goodness" and so on, the substantive interpretation of "pickpocketing" should be carried out by means of systematic interpretation, historical interpretation and objective interpretation, etc. At the same time, it is regulated by the proviso of Article 13 of the Criminal Law.The establishment of any crime needs to reach a certain degree of harm in terms of "quantity", and the traditional four elements, Germany and Japan, can not meet the requirements of this norm.The essence explanation of pickpocketing can be carried out in the system of qualitative and quantitative crime theory.Among them, "qualitative" solves the problem of "behavior should be appropriate", illegality (have or not, have or not), "quantitative" answer is whether the degree of harm "should be punished".To explain "pickpocketing" in essence, we can draw the conclusion that the purpose of "pickpocketing" is to protect people's property, to avoid potential personal harm and to enhance the people's sense of safety in travel, that is, legislative purpose, and at the same time,The line between pickpocketing and snatching can also be found.According to the legislative purpose and system coordination requirement, pickpocketing is necessary to "illegal possession purpose", in which "public place" should be defined by "communication theory", "carry-on" should be determined by "disposable theory"."means" should be determined by "peace theory".The judgment of "quantitative" elements is legal, which is based on the social mainstream ethical value and universal experience. The judgment of individual is mainly from two aspects: the degree of violation of law and the degree of responsibility.
【学位授予单位】：海南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.3

【参考文献】