普通侵占罪与盗窃罪之界分新论

发布时间：2018-05-11 02:39

本文选题：侵占罪 + 盗窃罪　；参考：《吉林大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：侵占罪与盗窃罪同属侵犯财产型犯罪,虽说两者的行为方式各不相同，但对于理论界和实务界来说，区分两者却并非易事。学界一直以看似清晰的“侵害人是否在事前合法占有他人财物”作为重要的区分点加以研究并反复实践。但随着现实案情的不断复杂化，此理论在具体运用到现实情况的过程中，则逐渐显露出难以自圆其说的弊端。文章首先将学界研究已久的侵占罪的讨论范围限定为代为保管型侵占罪（亦称普通侵占罪），同时为使法律能够尽可能的保护公民私有财产，主张对财物保管根据的选取持宽泛说的立场。作者接下来对两罪区分的讨论均在此范围内展开。文章第二部分对“占有权属”的不同评价观点进行了重点梳理。当下对侵占罪与盗窃罪的界分点主要选取“占有权属”这一概念，但本文作者认为，正是在刑法领域中并无实质性研究而引用于民法界的“占有”一词，导致很多对与此概念相关的刑法问题的讨论均面临着“明希豪森困局”,因为人们对“占有权属”这一概念的评价难以取得一致，从而导致在特定情况下，在“占有权属”的确定问题上形成了理论界“自说自话”的尴尬局面。为一进步论证此方向所面临的误区，文章第三部分阐释了尽管学界努力统一对“占有”观念的理解，但前提概念理解上所获的一致并没有带来对财物占有权现实归属问题上的统一认识。更有通过对“占有”概念进行细化解释的方法试图明确此核心概念之含义的各种努力，但事实表明诸种方法仍无法克服对“占有权属”诠释不能的障碍。此阶段我们得到的结论就是，无论在我国刑法理论上还是司法实务界里，将“占有权属”作为两罪划分的依据都不是一个可以完全信赖的选择。同时表明作者论证立场，即我们有必要在该问题的研究上清本溯源、另辟蹊径，以刑法理论逻辑为基础，结合刑法的规范目的，为两罪的划分确立一个既有深厚的理论支撑又有现实可行性的比较完善的标准。论文的第四、五部分作为对作者论点的主要论证支撑章节，以“法律逻辑前提”到“法律规范目的”的论述顺序，首先说明作为侵占罪三段论逻辑推理大前提的“易合法占有为非法所有”的真实及有效性面临着逻辑本身所无法涉及的难题，，而如何为形式逻辑之外的因素选择一种更为合理解释，本文作者择取“法的目的”作为本文问题解决的前提。文章接下来的篇幅便从亲告罪的设定的合理性根基出发，挖掘将侵占作为亲告罪在实现法律保护个体权益的规范目的上与亲告罪立法初衷的相统一之处，即公民在相关的犯罪场合至少保有依赖私力救济解决问题的法律可能性，借此提问为何盗窃罪没有被纳入亲告罪范围?而此原因正是侵占罪区别于盗窃罪的关键所在，即当公民的财产遭受不法侵害时，其具有依靠私力对受损财物予以追索或者求偿的法律可能性。文章的结尾，作者通过运用此新的界分理论对本文所提及的个别案例进行解释，再次论证此观点的合理及周延性。
[Abstract]:It is not easy for both the theoretical and practical circles to distinguish between crime of aggression and theft , although it is not easy for both theory and practice .

The article first defines the discussion scope of the long - standing crime of aggression in the academic field as the custody - type embezzlement crime ( also known as the general tort ) , at the same time , in order to enable the law to protect the private property of the citizen as much as possible , and advocate the position that the choice of the custody of the property is broad . The discussion of the distinction between the two crimes is carried out in this range .

The second part of this article focuses on the different evaluation opinions of " possession of the right " . At present , the concept of " possession " is mainly selected by the demarcation point of the crime of aggression and theft , but the author thinks that it is precisely in the field of criminal law that there is no substantive study to refer to the word " possession " in the civil law , which leads to a lot of discussion on the concept of " possession " which is difficult to achieve , which leads to the embarrassment of " self - talking " in the specific case , in the determination of the " possession of the right " .

The third part of this paper explains the misunderstanding of the concept of " possession " in the third part of the article . The conclusion is that , whether in China ' s criminal law theory or the judicial practice circle , it is necessary to make a clear explanation of the concept of " possession " , but it shows that all kinds of methods still cannot overcome the obstacles to the interpretation of the " possession " .

The fourth and fifth part of this paper , as the main proof and support section of the author ' s argument , explains the truth and validity of " legal logic premise " to " legal norm object " .

At the end of the article , the author explains the individual cases mentioned in this paper by applying the new theory of demarcation .

【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】