Q币的法律性质—兼论刑法上的保护

发布时间：2018-04-26 06:01

本文选题：虚拟货币 + 犯罪对象　；参考：《中国青年政治学院》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：本文从个案入手,对司法实践中的争议问题——虚拟货币的法律性质——进行研究。在司法实践中存在着这样一个问题,虚拟货币是否属于刑法中的财物,属于何种财物是需要仔细琢磨推敲的。这决定着罪与非罪的定性问题,以及此罪与彼罪的界限。本文通过对相关文献的研究发现,关于虚拟货币的性质并没有形成有力的通说,在理论上主要分为两派观点:物权说以及债权说。虚拟货币介于物权与债权的中间地带,模糊不清。所以厘清物权以及债权的界限乃本文所需要解决的第一个问题。从历史的视野来看物(物权的客体)与债权是一个从相对统一到对立分立的过程。在古罗马时期狭义的物与债权一并归于广义的物的范畴。所不同的是,狭义的物就是现代民法中的物,当时被称为有体物。而债权(确切的说是债的利益)则与其他权利(其他利益)一起一并归于无体物的范畴。有体物和无体物则属于广义的物的不同分类。有体物和无体物的区别在于客观存在以及观念的存在。所以延续这种逻辑在现代民法上判定物权与债权的区别首要考量的因素也是客观存在。客观存在的便是物。另外需要从经济价值的角度衡量某物,判断此物之上是否存在值得“拥有”的物权。虚拟货币本身的确存在物的“细胞”,但这些“细胞”并不是主干部分。虚拟货币的实质是由这些物的“细胞”所拼凑出的债权的“躯体”。虚拟货币应该是一种债权,是供应商与用户之间所签订的支付服务合同。虚拟货币作为一种债权,在我国的刑法的理论上是可以作为盗窃罪的犯罪对象的。但本文认为这种观点是值得商榷的。基于两点考虑:第一,出于对法律体系的尊重;第二,出于法制统一的考虑。在民事的法律体系中盗窃行为是无法改变债的民事法律关系的,所以盗窃行为是无法将债权“偷”走的。本文所讨论的是刑法问题,在讨论刑事上的定罪问题的时候,基于刑法的价值是可以不考虑民法的体系。但如果在实践之中刑法和民法持两种截然不同的观点,会造成司法实践中的矛盾判决。即在刑事审判之中认为债权因为盗窃行为而消失,但在民事审判之中债权依然存在。而消灭的债权和存在的债权又同时指向同一个债。这是让人无法接受的。所以对于虚拟货币的侵犯不应当以盗窃罪来规制而以诈骗罪来定性为宜。
[Abstract]:This paper, starting with a case study, studies the legal nature of fictitious currency, which is a controversial issue in judicial practice. There is such a problem in judicial practice that whether virtual money belongs to the property in criminal law and what kind of property should be carefully considered. This determines the nature of crime and non-crime, and the boundary between this crime and that crime. Through the study of relevant literature, this paper finds that there is no strong general theory about the nature of virtual currency, which is mainly divided into two viewpoints in theory: the theory of real right and the theory of creditor's rights. The virtual currency is between the real right and the creditor's right. So to clarify the boundary of real right and creditor's right is the first problem to be solved in this paper. From the perspective of history, the object of real right and the creditor's rights are a process from relative unity to opposites. In the ancient Roman period, the narrow sense of things and the creditor's rights came under the broad category of things. What is different is that the narrow-sense thing is the thing in the modern civil law, at that time is called the body thing. Claims (or, to be exact, interests of debt), together with other rights (other interests), fall under the category of incorporeal. Objects with and without objects are classified in a broad sense. The difference between bodies and objects lies in the objective existence and the existence of ideas. Therefore, the primary consideration of the difference between real right and creditor's right in modern civil law is the objective existence of this logic. What exists objectively is the object. In addition, we need to measure something from the angle of economic value and determine whether there is a property right worth owning. Virtual money itself does exist in "cells", but these "cells" are not the backbone. The essence of virtual money is the body of claims made up of the cells of these things. Virtual currency should be a kind of creditor's right, is the payment service contract between the supplier and the user. As a kind of creditor's right, virtual currency can be regarded as the object of larceny in theory in our country's criminal law. But this article thinks this kind of viewpoint is worth to question. Based on two considerations: first, out of respect for the legal system; second, out of the consideration of the unity of the legal system. In the civil legal system, theft can not change the civil legal relationship of debt, so the theft can not "steal" the creditor's rights. This paper discusses the problem of criminal law. When discussing the problem of criminal conviction, the value of criminal law is that the system of civil law can not be considered. However, if criminal law and civil law hold two different viewpoints in practice, they will result in contradictory judgments in judicial practice. In criminal trial, claims disappear because of theft, but they still exist in civil trials. The extermination of the creditor's rights and the existence of claims at the same time point to the same debt. This is unacceptable. Therefore, the infringement of virtual currency should not be regulated by theft but characterized by fraud.
【学位授予单位】：中国青年政治学院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.3

【参考文献】