索债型非法拘禁行为研究

发布时间：2018-06-17 07:57

本文选题：非法拘禁 + 索债型　；参考：《华中师范大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：随着经济的不断发展,人们之间经济交易日益密切,由此引起的经济债务纠纷明显增多,某些债权人缺乏法律意识,在运用私力救济手段实现债权的时候采取非法扣押、拘禁等手段去讨回债务案件层出不穷。我国最高人民法院作出解释规定:“行为人为索取高利贷、赌债等法律不予保护的债务,非法扣押、拘禁他人的,依照刑法第二百三十八条定罪处罚”。这一规定将非法债务明确规定到了“债务”中去。索债型非法拘禁行为以存在一定的债权债务关系为前提、以索债为目的,采用非法拘禁、扣押等非法手段剥夺他人人身自由的特征。索债型非法拘禁行为的构成要件表现为;主体属于一般主体,主观方面属于故意犯罪,并且其行为目的就是为了索取债务而实施的非法拘禁、扣押等限制人身自由的行为;客体即他人的人身自由权利;客观方面必须是采用非法拘禁、扣押等限制他人人身自由来索取债务。我将在这篇论文中从讨取债务的不正当囚禁行为的理论基础入手,结合国内外实证考察,对我国索债型非法拘禁行为认定在理论上的分歧、立法中的不足和司法中的障碍进行分析,进而探讨如何完善我国索债型非法拘禁行为相关规定的建议,这篇论文除去前言和结语,我将从以下三个部分去分析。第一部分索债型非法拘禁行为的理论阐释。解释说明索债型非法拘禁行为的涵义、主要特点以及它的构成要件进行全面剖析,通过与勒索型绑架罪进行区分比较,明确索债型非法拘禁行为的认定界限。第二部分国内外索债型非法拘禁行为的实证考察。通过阐述国外对于讨取债务运用非法拘禁行为的有关法律法规,得以借鉴,并连同我国现在对索债型非法拘禁行为的规定,以发现我国对索债型非法拘禁行为在理论上的分歧、立法中的不足与司法实践中存在的障碍。比如,刑法将不法债务也囊括在索债型非法拘禁中,这样势必与民法理论相悖,从而为犯罪分子提供了借口等。第三部分完善我国索债型非法拘禁行为相关规定的建议。提出认定索债型非法拘禁罪中“索要债务”的评价标准应重点从索债型债权人的主观方面进行分析,研究其社会危害性及犯罪构成等建议。
[Abstract]:With the development of economy, the economic transaction between people is getting closer and closer, and the disputes caused by economic debt increase obviously. Some creditors lack legal consciousness and take illegal seizure when using private relief means to realize creditor's rights. Detention and other means to recover debt cases emerge in endlessly. The Supreme people's Court of our country has made an explanation: "the perpetrator shall be convicted and punished in accordance with Article 238 of the Criminal Law for illegally seizing and detaining others for debts not protected by law such as usury and gambling debts." This provision makes it clear that illegal debts are included in the "debt". The behavior of illegal detention is based on the existence of a certain relationship between creditor's rights and debts, and the characteristics of depriving others of their personal liberty by illegal means such as illegal detention and seizure. The constitutive elements of the illegal detention for debt type are: the subject belongs to the general subject, the subjective aspect belongs to the intentional crime, and the purpose of the act is to restrict the personal freedom, such as illegal detention and seizure in order to obtain the debt; The object is the right of personal liberty of others, and the objective aspect must be to restrict the personal freedom of others by illegal detention and seizure. In this paper, I will start with the theoretical basis of improper captivity of debt, combining with the empirical investigation at home and abroad, to identify the theoretical differences of illegal detention of debt type in our country. The deficiency in the legislation and the obstacles in the administration of justice are analyzed, and then the suggestions on how to perfect the relevant provisions of the illegal detention behavior of debt seeking in our country are discussed. This paper removes the preface and the conclusion, and I will analyze it from the following three parts. The first part is the theoretical explanation of illegal detention. This paper explains the meaning, main characteristics and its constitutive requirements of illegal detention for debt seeking. By comparing it with kidnapping of extortion type, it clarifies the limits of the identification of illegal detention for debt seeking. The second part is the empirical investigation of debt-seeking illegal detention at home and abroad. By expounding the relevant laws and regulations of foreign countries on the illegal detention for debt, we can draw lessons from it, and together with the provisions of our country on the illegal detention for debt, we can find out the differences in theory about the illegal detention for debt in our country. The deficiency in legislation and the obstacles in judicial practice. For example, criminal law also includes illegal debts in illegal detention, which is bound to contradict the theory of civil law, thus providing excuses for criminals and so on. The third part consummates our country's request debt type illegal detention behavior related stipulation suggestion. The author puts forward that the evaluation standard of "asking for debt" in the crime of illegal detention should be analyzed from the subjective aspect of the creditor, and the suggestion of its social harmfulness and the constitution of crime should be studied.
【学位授予单位】：华中师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D924.34

【参考文献】