盗窃并出卖欠条行为的刑法性质认定

发布时间：2018-05-12 10:39

本文选题：欠条 + 危害结果　；参考：《西南政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：作为民法上债权债务的证明，欠条被广泛用于交易之中，但刑法未对欠条作出明确规定。而近年来，由欠条引发的刑事案件频发，使得我们有必要梳理并明确欠条在刑法上的定位。本文通过对一典型案件的分析，阐述在进行与欠条相关案件的违法性判断时应考虑的重点，同时分析财产类犯罪的法益并考量社会危害性的判断方法，了解司法中对财产类疑难案件应如何把握。本文一共分为五个部分：第一部分阐述了案件的基本情况，指出学者对该案件形成的“有罪论”与“无罪论”的对立观点，再从中总结出该案件的争议焦点。第二部分是对陈某盗窃欠条这一单独行为进行刑法评价。首先，笔者评价财物和财产性利益的性质，指出作为财产犯罪的对象必须具有经济价值，欠条本身并无价值，但它的特殊性在于其所体现的是王某的所有权，不能一概否定欠条不是财产犯罪的对象。其次，针对有学者提出的以行为主体的身份区分欠条的定位，笔者提出应当以危害结果作为欠条性质的判断依据，认为陈某单独盗窃欠条并无危害结果，得出无罪结论。在表明自己立场之后，最后一部分是对有罪论学者的观点加以批判。第三部分内容围绕陈、李二人买卖欠条行为展开讨论。这一部分主要涉及的是有罪论者所提出的各自观点：故意毁坏财物罪说、诈骗罪说、盗窃罪说、敲诈勒索罪说、掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得、犯罪所得收益罪说和侵占罪说。同时，因该案在实践中以侵占罪论处，故对侵占罪论给予更为详细的解读，最后指出上述观点均不成立。笔者通过该部分“破”有罪论，为第四部分“立”无罪论作铺垫。第四部分是本人对陈、李二人买卖欠条行为的观点。笔者分为两部分进行描述，第一部分是财产罪法益视野下的分析：首先，侵害法益是行为适用刑法的依据，因而只要认定两人买卖欠条的行为未造成法益受损，即可认定两人无罪。在此观点上，笔者以相关学说来论证我国刑法保护的财产罪法益范围，得出我国刑法并非完全接受“法律、经济财产说”，而是基于社会秩序的因素，也将民法上的不法利益纳入刑法规制的范畴内的结论。其次，以上述财产罪法益的范围对现存的“所有权说”加以改造，将非法占有也视为财产罪法益。最后，对本案进行探讨：认为无论是陈某的出卖行为，亦或是李某的购买行为都未有危害结果，财产罪法益并未遭到侵害。第二部分是社会危害性视野下的分析：首先，笔者主张坚持社会危害性在刑法中的基础地位，同时指出学者们在社会危害性程度判断方式具体化方面的努力；其次，提出应将危害结果作为鉴别财产犯罪的社会危害性程度的核心；最后，结合本案得出无罪结论。第五部分是由此案引发的思考的内容。该部分分为两个部分，其一是主张扩充所有权说的内涵，以包括债权和其他他物权在内的广义上的所有权取代狭义的、民法范畴内的所有权。其二是主张在司法实践当中，对于财产类犯罪案件，司法人员不应以行为来认定社会危害性，而应当更加注重危害结果，坚持法益优先的原则。
[Abstract]:As the proof of the creditor's right and debt in civil law, the debates are widely used in the transaction, but the criminal law does not make a clear regulation of the debt. In recent years, the frequent occurrence of criminal cases caused by the debates makes it necessary for us to sort out and clarify the position of the debt in the criminal law. The emphasis should be taken into consideration when judging the illegality of the piece. At the same time, it analyzes the legal benefits of property crimes and examines the judgment method of social harmfulness, and understands how to grasp the difficult cases of property in the judicature.
This article is divided into five parts:
The first part expounds the basic situation of the case, and points out the opposing views of the "guilt theory" and "the innocence theory" formed by the scholars, and then summarizes the controversial focus of the case.
The second part is to evaluate the individual behavior of Chen's larceny. First, the author appraise the nature of property and property interests, and point out that as the object of property crime, it must have economic value and the debt itself is not valuable, but its particularity lies in the ownership of Wang. It is the object of property crime. Secondly, in view of the position of the identity of the person who is distinguished by the principal of the behavior subject, the author proposes that the result of the harmful result should be judged as the basis of the nature of the debt. It is believed that there is no harmful result and the conclusion of innocence is obtained by Chen's single thief. After showing his position, the last part is the theory of guilt. The point of view is criticized.
The third part focuses on Chen and Li's behavior of buying and selling debts. This part mainly involves the respective views of the offending person: the crime of intentional destruction of property, the theory of fraud, the crime of theft, the extortion, the concealment of the proceeds of the crime, the crime of income and the crime of encroachment. In the case of the crime of embezzlement, we give a more detailed interpretation of the theory of the crime of encroachment, and finally point out that all the above views are not established. The author, through this part of the "break" theory of guilt, paves the way for the fourth part "standing" on the theory of innocence.
The fourth part is my views on the behavior of buying and selling debts between Chen and Li. The author is divided into two parts. The first part is the analysis of the legal interest of property crime. First, the infringement of legal interest is the basis of the criminal law. Therefore, as long as the behavior of the two persons is not damaged by the law, two people can be found innocent. On the point of view, the author demonstrates the legal interest scope of the property crime protected by criminal law in China, and concludes that our criminal law does not fully accept the "law, economic property", but is based on the factors of social order, and the legal interests of the civil law are included in the scope of the criminal law regulation. Secondly, the scope of the legal interest of the above property crime is present. The "ownership theory" is reformed and illegal possession is also regarded as the legal benefit of property crime. Finally, the case is discussed: the second part is the analysis under the social harmfulness: first, the author, the author, that the legal benefit of property crime has not been infringed on whether it is Chen's selling behavior or the purchase behavior of Li. Zhang persisted in the basic status of social harmfulness in the criminal law, and pointed out the efforts of scholars to concretely judge the way of judging the degree of social harmfulness; secondly, put forward that the harmful results should be the core of the social harmfulness of the crime of identifying property; finally, the conclusion of innocence was obtained in the case of this case.
The fifth part is the content of thinking caused by this case. This part is divided into two parts. One is to expand the connotation of the theory of ownership, and replace the narrow sense with the broad sense of ownership, including the creditor's rights and other property rights, and the ownership in the civil law category. The second is to claim that in the practice of the law, the crime of property crimes, the judicature Personnel should not identify social harmfulness by behavior, but should pay more attention to the consequences and adhere to the principle of giving priority to legal interests.

【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.35

【参考文献】