盗窃罪与侵占罪的界限研究

发布时间：2018-05-06 22:10

本文选题：占有 + 代为保管　；参考：《吉林大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：随着我国经济的发展，侵犯财产类的犯罪已成为我国当前最常见多发的犯罪类型，而这其中又尤以盗窃罪为众罪之首。而侵占罪作为侵犯财产罪中的又一重要犯罪类型，其与盗窃罪一样都是以平和手段去侵犯他人之财产权，在外在行为表现等诸多方面的区别并非可以轻易分辨出来，在实践中出现了很多将二者加以混淆的情况。本文采用比较研究法与实证研究法相结合，从盗窃罪与侵占罪的保护客体、对象和行为三个大的方面来分析研究区分二者的界限。本文的主体部分分别为“盗窃罪与侵占罪的保护客体之区别”、“盗窃罪与侵占罪的对象区别”以及“盗窃罪与侵占罪行为方式之区别”。其中分别是从犯罪客体、犯罪对象和犯罪行为的角度研究盗窃罪与侵占罪的界限。本文首先分析盗窃罪与侵占罪保护客体的区别。二者保护客体的区别体现在对占有的侵害和对所有权的侵害之间的区别。因而占有归属的判断，是本文重点论述的内容，也是盗窃罪与侵占罪区别的核心，，可以说占有归属的判断直接关系到盗窃罪与侵占罪的正确认定。在论述占有归属的判断标准时首先介绍“占有”概念的刑法内涵及构成要素，在介绍“占有”的刑法内涵时还要厘清刑法中的“占有”与民法中“占有”的不同涵义。然后笔者再介绍在实践中常会遇到的几种特殊情况下盗窃罪与侵占罪如何界定。具体包括杀害死者后的死者财物占有的认定、受委托的包装物占有的认定、平行关系下占有的认定以及主从关系下占有的认定。通过对这些特殊情况下占有关系如何认定的阐述会使我们正确理解盗窃罪与侵占罪的区别乃至更好地指导司法实践。本文接下来分析盗窃罪与侵占罪对象的区别。笔者对侵占罪中“代为保管物”的认定、“遗忘物”的认定以及“埋藏物”的认定进行了深入细致的分析。此三者均为侵占罪的行为对象，具有特殊性。接着笔者再分析盗窃罪的行为对象的内涵和外延以及如何界定盗窃罪的对象。通过分析侵占罪对象的特殊性以及盗窃罪的对象我们就可以总结出盗窃罪与侵占罪在对象上的区别。本文最后分析盗窃罪与侵占罪行为的区别。本部分分别介绍盗窃罪与侵占罪不同的行为方式。盗窃罪的行为方式是以平和手段破坏原占有关系，而建立新的占有关系，并且不限于“秘密窃取”；而侵占罪的行为方式并没有破坏占有关系，而是将占有转化为不法所有，拒不退还或者拒不交出。在此，笔者还对侵占罪行为方式中的“非法占为己有”、“拒不退还”和“拒不交出”的含义以及相互之间的关系作了深入的分析。通过分析二者各自的行为方式的不同特点，我们就可以总结出盗窃罪与侵占罪的行为方式区别基准。笔者通过对以上内容的分析研究，最终可以总结出区分盗窃罪与侵占罪界限的逻辑路径。盗窃罪与侵占罪的区别首先体现在客体的区别上，而占有的判断又是区分盗窃罪与侵占罪界限的核心。盗窃罪与侵占罪的区别还体现在对象的区别和行为的区别上。在对象上，侵占罪的对象比盗窃罪的对象更为特殊，限于代为保管的他人财物、他人的遗忘物以及埋藏物，而盗窃罪的对象则没有此限定。在行为上盗窃罪表现为采用平和手段转移占有，而侵占罪表现为易占有为不法所有。
[Abstract]:With the development of our country's economy, the crime of encroaching property has become the most common type of crime in our country, especially the crime of theft, which is the most important crime. And the crime of encroachment, as another important type of crime in the crime of property infringement, is the same as the crime of theft, which infringes the property rights of others by means of peace and means. The difference between the performance and many other aspects can not be easily identified. In practice, there are a lot of cases that confuse the two. This paper combines the comparative study method and the empirical study method to analyze the distinction between the two parties from the three aspects of the protection object, the object and the behavior of the crime of theft and embezzlement.
The main part of this article is "the difference between the protection object of the crime of theft and the crime of embezzlement", "the difference between the object of the crime of theft and the crime of embezzlement" and the difference between the crime and the way of the crime of embezzlement. The distinction between the crime and the crime of the crime of embezzlement is studied respectively, which are the boundaries of the crime of theft and the crime of embezzlement from the angle of the object of crime, the object of the crime and the crime.
This article first analyzes the difference between the crime of theft and the object of the protection of the crime of embezzlement. The difference between the two objects of protection is reflected in the difference between the infringement of possession and the infringement of the ownership. Therefore, the judgment of possession is the content of this article and the core of the difference between the crime of theft and the crime of embezzlement, and it can be said that the judgment of possession is directly related to the crime of possession. To the correct identification of the crime of theft and embezzlement. First, it introduces the connotation and elements of the criminal law of the concept of possession in the discussion of the standard of possession and ownership. In the introduction of the connotation of the criminal law of "possession", we should also clarify the different meanings of "possession" in the criminal law and the "possession" in the civil law. How to define the crime of theft and embezzlement under several special circumstances. The identification of the possession of the property and property of the dead after the death of the dead, the identification of the possession of the entrusted package, the cognizance of the possession under the parallel relationship and the identification of the possession under the relationship between the principal and the subordinate. Correctly understand the difference between theft and embezzlement and even better guide the judicial practice.
This article then analyzes the difference between the crime of theft and the object of the crime of embezzlement. The author makes a thorough and detailed analysis of the cognizance of "the custodian" in the crime of embezzlement, the cognizance of the "forgotten thing" and the identification of the "buried object". These three are all the objects of the crime of embezzlement and are special. Then the author then analyses the object of the crime of theft. Intension and extension and how to define the object of larceny. Through the analysis of the particularity of the object of embezzlement and the object of the theft, we can sum up the difference between the crime of theft and the crime of embezzlement.
This article finally analyzes the difference between the crime of theft and the act of embezzlement. This part introduces the different ways of theft and the crime of embezzlement. The behavior of the crime is to destroy the original relationship by means of peace and means, and to establish a new possession and not be confined to the "secret theft", and the behavior of the crime of embezzlement has not been destroyed. The author also makes an in-depth analysis of the meaning of "illegal occupation for oneself", the meaning of "refusing to return" and "refusing to be out of hand" and the relationship between each other. By analyzing the different characteristics of the respective behavior patterns of the two parties, I have also made an in-depth analysis of the meaning of "illegal occupation of oneself", "refusing to return" and "refusing to surrender" in the manner of the crime of embezzlement. We can sum up the difference between theft and embezzlement.
Through the analysis and study of the above content, the author can finally sum up the logical path of distinguishing the boundary between the crime of larceny and the crime of embezzlement. The difference between the crime of theft and the crime of embezzlement is first reflected in the distinction of the object, and the judgement of possession is the core of the distinction between the crime of theft and the crime of embezzlement. On the object, the object of the crime of embezzlement is more special than the object of the crime of theft, which is limited to the belongings of others, the forgotten objects and the buried objects, and the object of the theft is not limited. In the act of theft, the crime of theft is transferred by means of peaceful means, and the crime of embezzlement is easy to occupy. All.

【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.3

【参考文献】