盗窃罪中的“扒窃”行为研究

发布时间：2018-05-29 17:27

本文选题：盗窃罪 + 扒窃　；参考：《华侨大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：2011年5月1日,《刑法修正案(八)》正式开始施行。这是1997年刑法施行以来,刑事法律领域法条修改最多的一次立法活动。修正案的第39条,将扒窃、入户盗窃、携带凶器盗窃等多种特殊类型的盗窃方式纳入刑法规制的范畴,使得盗窃罪原有的罪状发生了较大的变化。而“扒窃”入刑,使得常见多发的小额扒窃乃至零额扒窃的行为被认定为犯罪,“扒窃”也因此由一个俗语变成了严谨的法律术语。所谓“扒窃”不仅要有以非法占有为目的的主观故意,客观方面也要求是在公共场所(包括公共交通工具等)窃取被害人的随身携带财物的行为。近年来,各类“扒窃入刑第一案”新闻报道的涌现,不论是在法学理论界还是司法实务界,或者社会上都引起了不小的轰动和争议,对扒窃行为的司法认定和理论分析成为当务之急。本文主要围绕扒窃型盗窃罪的规范理解和司法适用展开研究,内容包括引言、正文和结语三个部分。正文第一部分主要回顾“扒窃”入刑的立法演变过程,从原来的劳动教养(行政处罚)到刑事处罚,从数额标准到数额标准与次数标准并行,再到多次扒窃即可入刑,可见扒窃行为入刑在立法和司法层面的把握日趋严苛。当前盗窃犯罪圈的扩大化,不仅出于对行为本身特殊社会危险性的考虑,还因为扒窃行为人固有的人身危险性较大,而且也与当下扒窃违法犯罪高发但惩处不力的现实有着必然联系。第二部分内容为“扒窃”入刑后面临的司法新问题,指出目前不管是理论研究还是司法实践,对“扒窃”规范含义的理解、扒窃行为应否一律定罪以及扒窃犯罪的对象是否应具有价值等问题都产生了巨大争议,相关观点甚至针锋相对,由此也造成司法实践中出现同案不同判、零额少额入刑及打击面宽泛化等诸多问题,引起公众对司法公正和权威的质疑。第三部分主要从历史解释、文义解释及学理解释等角度详细分析扒窃行为要素的规范理解,并着重从地点要素“公共场所”、对象要素“随身携带的财物”这两个方面存在的争议及应然属性进行阐述,以准确理解“扒窃”的规范含义。第四部分则结合刑法总则第13条的但书规定对“扒窃”是否无条件一律入罪进行解析,指出在办理扒窃案件时应注意结合行为人的作案动机、造成后果、是否初犯、偶犯等具体情节进行考量,如果行为人的人身危险性不大或者社会危害性不明显,则可以合理引用刑法的但书规定作出罪处理。同时,在上述解析的基础上,指出不管是数额型盗窃,还是多次盗窃,亦或者是携带凶器、入户盗窃等不同形式的盗窃,都与扒窃型盗窃有着不同的关系和明显的分界。如果个案中出现多种情形重叠的情况,应视不同的具体情节适当量刑,防止重复评价及出现同案不同判等问题。接着,从法理学的角度对扒窃行为有无未遂与既遂之分进行分析,提出扒窃存在未遂状态,并详述司法实践中如何正确界定扒窃的犯罪状态。在结语部分,笔者针对“扒窃”入刑以来司法实践过程中产生的问题,提出合理引用刑法总则的但书规定、出台具体司法解释、把握好司法尺度等合理化建议,以期有助于扒窃行为入罪化的准确界定。
[Abstract]:In May 1, 2011, the amendment of the criminal law (eight) was formally implemented. This is one of the most amended legislative activities in the field of criminal law since the implementation of the criminal law in 1997. The thirty-ninth articles of the amendment include the inclusion of a variety of special types of theft, such as pickpocket, burglary, and theft, into the category of criminal law regulation, so as to make the original theft The "pickpocket" is regarded as a crime, and "pickpocket" has become a strict legal term for "pickpocket". The so-called "pickpocket" should not only have the subjective intention of illegal possession, but also the objective aspect is to be in the public. In recent years, the emergence of all kinds of news reports of "the first case of pickpocket entry" has aroused great sensation and controversy in the legal theory circle, the judicial practice circle, or the society, and the judicial cognizance and theoretical analysis of the behavior of pickpockets. This paper mainly focuses on the normative understanding and judicial application of theft type theft, including introduction, text and conclusion three parts. The first part of the text mainly reviews the legislative evolution process of "pickpocket" into punishment, from the original labor reeducation (administrative department penalty) to criminal punishment, from the amount standard to the amount standard and the amount standard. It can be seen that the number of times standard is parallel, and then a number of pickpockets can be put into punishment. It can be seen that the grasp of the action of pickpocket is increasingly harsh in the legislative and judicial level. The enlargement of the current theft crime circle is not only for the special social danger of the behavior itself, but also because of the inherent personal danger of the pickpocket, and it is also illegal with the present pickpocket. The second part is the new problem of judicature that the "pickpocket" faces after entering the penalty. It points out whether it is theoretical research or judicial practice, the understanding of the standard meaning of "pickpocket", the law of theft and whether the object of pickpocket crime should be of value. There are great disputes, and the relevant views are even tat, which also leads to many problems in the judicial practice, such as the different cases of the same case, the small amount of the penalty and the broad generalization of the face width, which cause the public to question the justice and authority of the judicature. The third part analyzes the pickpocket in detail from the historical explanation, the interpretation of literary meaning and the explanation of the theory and so on. In order to understand the standard meaning of "pickpocket", the fourth part combines the proviso of the thirteenth articles of the general law of the criminal law. The fourth part combines the proviso of thirteenth articles of the general law of the criminal law to determine whether the "pickpocket" is unconditional. In the case of crime, it is pointed out that in handling the case of pickpocket, we should pay attention to the motives of the perpetrator, the consequences, the initial offense, the crime and other specific plots, if the person's personal danger is not large or the social harmfulness is not obvious, then the proviso of the criminal law should be rationally used to deal with the crime. On the basis of the analysis, it is pointed out that both the amount type theft, multiple theft, or the carrying of the murder weapon, the burglary and other forms of theft have different relations and distinct demarcation. If there are many cases overlapped in the case, we should measure the penalty according to the different specific circumstances and prevent the repeated evaluation. And then there are different cases of the same case. Then, from the perspective of jurisprudence, it analyses the attempted and accomplished offense of pickpocket, puts forward the attempted state of pickpocket, and details how to define the criminal state of pickpocket in judicial practice. In the concluding part, the author has asked the question of "pickpocket" in the process of judicial practice. On the basis of the proviso provisions of the general provisions of the criminal law, a specific judicial interpretation, a good grasp of the judicial scale and so on, will be put forward in order to help the precise definition of the crime of pickpocket.
【学位授予单位】：华侨大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.3

【相似文献】