索债型非法拘禁罪与绑架罪之辨

发布时间：2018-06-30 05:21

本文选题：非法拘禁罪 + 绑架罪　；参考：《兰州大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：索债型非法拘禁罪和绑架罪的认定,目前无论在司法实践中还是刑法理论中,都具有很大争议。最初的我国并未对绑架罪有所规定,一般都以非法拘禁罪或抢劫罪论处。然而这造成了司法适用中混乱情况,后经过最高法院出台的司法解释,其明确规定为了索要债务而非法拘禁他人的行为是非法拘禁罪。但是,在适用法条和司法解释的过程中还存在一些争议：对非法拘禁他人的“他人”和赌债、高利贷等非法债务以外的不存在但事出有因的债如何定性；索债行为是否具有勒索目的及债务数额对定罪影响等。本文通过具体案件,对二罪的犯罪对象、臆想之债的定性、主观目的和债务数额四个方面进行了分析讨论,最终得出四则案件适用法律正确,定罪合法合理的观点。本文分为四章,约20000字第一章,介绍四则案件及主要争议点。案件分别在犯罪行为主观目的、犯罪对象即法条中非法拘禁他人中的“他人”、不存在但事出有因的债务的定性及债务数额上存在争议。第二章,本章是本文中的主体部分,分别对案件反映的争议进行刑法理论分析。得出只有索债目的才能构成非法拘禁罪、他人只能是债务人本人、不存在但事出有因的债务也认定为索债的“债”及债务数额超过实际债务即构成绑架罪的结论。第三章,争议问题带来的启示。在司法实务中应注意区分二者的犯罪构成,司法解释上应进一步明确犯罪对象,明确债务性质及明确债务数额。最后是结论部分。
[Abstract]:The determination of the crime of illegal detention and kidnapping, whether in judicial practice or in the theory of criminal law, is controversial. At first, the crime of kidnapping was not stipulated in our country, and it was generally punished by the crime of illegal detention or robbery. This, however, created confusion in the application of justice, which was later interpreted by the Supreme Court as an offence of unlawful detention in order to demand debt. However, in the process of applying the law and judicial interpretation, there are still some controversies: how to characterize the "others" and gambling debts illegally detained by others, the non-existent but justified debts other than usury and other illegal debts; Whether the demand for debt has the purpose of extortion and the influence of the amount of debt on the conviction and so on. This paper analyzes and discusses the object of crime, the nature of fictional debt, the subjective purpose and the amount of debt in the specific cases, and finally comes to the point of view that the law is correct and the conviction is legal and reasonable in four cases. This paper is divided into four chapters, about 20000 words the first chapter, introduces four cases and main points of contention. The cases are respectively for the subjective purpose of the criminal act, the object of the crime is the illegal detention of the "other person" in the law, but there is no dispute on the nature of the debt and the amount of the debt. The second chapter, this chapter is the main part of this article, the case reflects the dispute of the theoretical analysis of criminal law. It comes to the conclusion that only the purpose of asking for debts can constitute the crime of illegal detention, that the other person can only be the debtor himself, and that the debt which does not exist but has a cause is also considered as the "debt" of the demand for debt and that the amount of the debt exceeds the actual debt, which constitutes the crime of kidnapping. Chapter III, the implications of the controversy. In judicial practice, attention should be paid to distinguish the constitution of the two crimes. In judicial interpretation, the object of the crime, the nature of the debt and the amount of the debt should be further clarified. The last part is the conclusion.
【学位授予单位】：兰州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.34

【参考文献】