扒窃行为司法适用研究

发布时间：2018-06-24 22:07

本文选题：扒窃 + 司法适用　；参考：《江西财经大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：基于解释论的立场具体分析,在《刑法修正案(八)》已经将扒窃行为纳入法律条文规制之后,现阶段刑法理论和司法实践的当务之急是如何理解并合理适用“扒窃”的规定。争议扒窃内涵的合理界定只是刑事实体法迈出的第一步,如何设置刑罚范围的限制或者扩张才是第二步需要仔细思量的细节,故对扒窃入刑应持谨慎的态度。本文首先阐述自《刑法修正案(八)》实施以来关于扒窈入刑和质疑之声,收集扒窃案件实际司法适用过程中的具体情况,学习、借鉴其他学者观点,提出界定扒窃概念的理论基础；其次从“公共场所”、“随身携带”、“扒窃数额”、“扒窃主体”四个角度的理解入手,对扒窃行为进行进一步认定；再针对盗窃犯罪五种行为类型的规定,从行为类型相互间的适用关系分析各自适用的空间、区别,继而具体探讨扒窃与较难界分的相关涉财犯罪行为的竞合处理,例如与普通盗窃、携带凶器盗窃以及抢夺的竞合。扒窃入刑的正当性就在于扒窃行为具有比较严重的法益侵害性,这也是犯罪的本质属性所在。扒窃行为不仅是对财产权、人身权及公共秩序的多重侵害,而且扒窃者的主观恶性较大,扒窃入刑是对现行法律面临扒窃行为“发案率高、惩罚度小”困境的填补。扒窃是在公共场所或者交通工具上窃取他人随身携带财物的行为,对于公共场所的判断需要考虑场所开放的程度,即社会公众进出的自由性程度,场所开放的空间范围,即场所内部不同区域准许社会公众进出的自由度,人员流动性特征,即具有组成人员不特定并且人员流动性高的特征；对财物的随身性应作实质性的解释,不应仅局限于财物与身体直接接触的情形,还要考虑财物所有人与财物之间的密切、实质关系；扒窃成立犯罪原则上不应有数额的限制；在扒窃犯罪的入罪构成上有必要考虑行为人的人身危险性、主观恶性,对于初犯、偶犯、未成年人等没有其他可罚情节的要从宽处理。《刑法修正案(八)》将“盗窃数额较大”、“多次盗窃”、“入户盗窃”、“携带凶器盗窃”以及“扒窃”并列为盗窃罪的不法行为类型,从属于一个罪名,适用相同的法定刑,这表明在立法上是给予五种盗窃行为类型相同的否定评价和责难。因此,同其余四种盗窃行为类型相比,扒窃行为所体现的不法程度应与之基本相当,即扒窃入刑与其它四种不法行为类型入罪的标准基本相当,但不法的角度允许有所侧重。
[Abstract]:Based on the concrete analysis of the position of explanation theory, after the "Criminal Law Amendment (8)" has brought pickpocketing into the legal provisions, the urgent task of the present criminal law theory and judicial practice is how to understand and reasonably apply the "pickpocketing" provisions. The reasonable definition of the connotation of pickpocketing is only the first step of the criminal substantive law. How to set up the limitation or expansion of the scope of punishment is the second step that needs careful consideration, so we should take a cautious attitude to the crime of pickpocketing. In this paper, the author first expounds the sound of criminal punishment and questioning since the implementation of the Criminal Law Amendment (8), collects the specific situation in the actual judicial application of pickpocketing cases, studies, and draws on the views of other scholars. This paper puts forward the theoretical basis of defining the concept of pickpocketing, secondly, starting with the understanding of "public place", "carry-on", "amount of pickpocketing" and "subject of pickpocketing", further confirms the behavior of pickpocketing. Then according to the provisions of five kinds of behavior types of theft, this paper analyzes the space and difference between them from the applicable relationship between them, and then discusses the competing treatment of pickpocketing and the related property-related crimes that are difficult to distinguish. For example, with ordinary theft, with the murder of the theft and snatching of the competition. The legitimacy of pickpocketing is that pickpocketing has more serious legal interests, which is the essence of crime. Pickpocketing is not only the infringement of property rights, personal rights and public order, but also the subjective malignancy of pickpockets. Pickpocketing is the act of stealing other people's belongings with them in a public place or on a means of transportation. The judgment of a public place needs to take into account the degree of openness of the place, that is, the degree of freedom in and out of the public, and the scope of the space in which the place is open. That is, the freedom of entering and going of the public in different areas of the place, the characteristics of the mobility of personnel, that is, the characteristics of non-specific composition and high mobility of personnel; the material property should be explained substantially. It should not only be confined to the situation of direct contact between property and body, but also consider the close and substantial relationship between property owner and property. It is necessary to consider the personal danger and subjective malignancy of the perpetrator in the constitution of the incriminating crime of pickpocketing. If there are no other punishable circumstances, such as the first offense, the incidental offender, the minor, etc. < Amendment (8) > of the Criminal Law will "the amount of theft be relatively large," "multiple theft", "burglary", "burglary with murder weapons" and "pickpocketing" are the illegal types of larceny, subordinate to one offence and subject to the same statutory penalty. This shows that the legislation gives five types of theft the same negative evaluation and censure. Therefore, compared with the other four types of theft, the illegal degree of pickpocketing should be similar to that of the other four types of unlawful behavior, that is, the standard of criminal incrimination of pickpocketing and the other four types of unlawful behavior is basically equivalent, but the angle of lawlessness allows some emphasis.
【学位授予单位】：江西财经大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.3

【相似文献】