贪污罪认定疑难问题研究

发布时间：2018-06-30 16:56

本文选题：贪污罪 + 主体　；参考：《沈阳师范大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：对于贪污罪认定过程中容易出现的疑难问题，我国刑法理论界的学者已经进行过大量的研究与深入的探讨，并且取得了丰硕的研究成果。但是，贪污罪在司法实践中仍然是一个复杂的认定过程，仍有许多问题尚未在理论与实践中形成统一的认识，比如贪污罪主体的认定标准是什么，何为从事公务，贪污罪的对象包括哪些，公共财产的范围是什么，以及国企改制后如果认定国有公司的范围等，对这些问题的不同认识都将直接影响对贪污罪的定性。本文笔者通过对于选用案件的基本案情、法院审判情况以及案件在审判中存在的分歧观点的详细介绍，对案件涉及的问题进行深度剖析，以此引出贪污罪认定过程中出现的具体问题，主要从贪污罪的构成要件分析，即贪污罪的主体认定问题以及贪污罪的对象问题。文中采取实证与比较分析的研究方法，通过实际案例对现有的法律规定以及相关的理论观点进行对比研究。通过对案件中行为人能否构成贪污罪主体的分析，并结合贪污罪主体的特点“从事公务”，笔者认为，在认定国有企业承包经营中的主体问题上，根据承包方式的不同，主体的认定也有所区别，经营型承包中的承包者一般属于国家工作人员，而对于劳务型中的承包者则不属于国家工作人员。另外，对于贪污罪的对象认定问题，贪污罪的对象范围并不仅限于公共财产，还包括国内公务以及外交中接受的礼物以及非国有企业、公司和其他单位的财产，而结合本文案例，对于承包经营中贪污罪的对象认定问题，笔者认为贪污罪犯罪对象的认定与主体不同，，不能只是看承包方式，还要看承包利润的最终归属，具体情况应当具体分析，不能笼统的认为承包所得在分配前就全部属于国有。在对案件中行为人占有检测费用的行为具体分析后，笔者赞同法院的判决，认为行为人高枫占有检测费用属于本应返还给其个人的费用，不应认定为国有财产，因此不构成贪污罪，同时也不构成其他犯罪。
[Abstract]:The scholars in the theoretical circle of the criminal law of our country have done a lot of research and in-depth discussion and have achieved fruitful research results. However, the crime of corruption is still a complex process in judicial practice, and there are still many problems that have not been formed in theory and practice. First, for example, what is the criteria for determining the subject of the crime of embezzlement, what is the object of the public affairs, the object of the crime of corruption, the scope of the public property, and the scope of the state-owned companies after the reform of the state-owned enterprises, the different understanding of these issues will directly affect the quality of the crime of corruption.
Through the detailed introduction of the basic case of the case, the trial situation of the court and the disagreement of the case in the trial, the author makes a deep analysis of the problems involved in the case in order to lead to the specific problems in the identification of the crime of embezzlement, mainly from the analysis of the constitutive requirements of the crime of embezzlement, that is, the main body of the crime of corruption. The problem and the object of the crime of embezzlement. The paper adopts the research method of empirical and comparative analysis, and compares the existing legal provisions and the relevant theoretical views through the actual cases.
Through the analysis of whether the perpetrator can constitute the main body of the crime of embezzlement in the case, and combining the characteristics of the subject of the crime of embezzlement, the author believes that, on the subject of the subject matter in the contracting management of the state-owned enterprises, the identification of the main body is also different according to the different contracting ways, and the contractors in the operation type contract generally belong to the state work. As for the contractors in the labor service, the contractors do not belong to the state staff. In addition, the object scope of the crime of embezzlement is not only limited to public property, but also the domestic and diplomatic gifts, as well as the property of non-state enterprises, public companies and other units, and the case of this article. The author thinks that the object of the crime of corruption is identified with the subject of the crime of corruption. The author thinks that the identification of the crime object of the crime of embezzlement is different from the subject of the crime. It should not only look at the way of contract, but also the final attribution of the contract profit. The specific situation should be analyzed concretely, and it cannot be generalized that the contract income is all owned by the state before the distribution. After a specific analysis of the behavior of the inspection fee, the author agrees with the court's judgment that the charge of testing by the actor Gao Feng belongs to the cost that should be returned to his individual, and should not be considered as a state property, so it does not constitute a crime of corruption and does not constitute any other crime.
【学位授予单位】：沈阳师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.392

【参考文献】