职务侵占、贪污案件共同犯罪的认定

发布时间：2018-07-10 00:04

本文选题：职务侵占罪 + 贪污罪　；参考：《吉林大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：职务侵占罪与贪污罪既有区别又有相同之处。单独犯罪比较容易认定，但是当涉嫌职务侵占罪主体与贪污罪主体形成共同犯罪时，则问题比较复杂。关于职务侵占、贪污案件如何认定共同犯罪问题，刑法理论界和实务界也一直是战火不断，分别提出了不同的观点。概括起来，主要的观点包括分别定罪说和统一定罪说。因为立论依据的不同，两学说内部又分化出不同的学说观点。具体包括实行行为决定说、为主的职权决定说、核心角色说、想象竞合犯说、义务重要者实行犯说等。但是经过对这些学说的比较和分析，发现这些学说虽然都或多或少具有一定的合理性，但也都存在一定的不足：或者过于片面而缺乏普遍适用性，或者最终的定论可能造成罪刑失衡，等等。针对此问题，2000年6月27日，最高人民法院与最高人民检察院联合颁布了《关于审理贪污、职务侵占案件如何认定共同犯罪几个问题的解释》（以下简称《解释》），该解释规定对共同犯罪按照主犯的犯罪性质定罪。三年后，最高人民法院又印发了《全国法院审理经济犯罪案件工作座谈会纪要》（以下简称《纪要》），其确定的最终处断原则为：以按照主犯的犯罪性质定罪为原则，并补充适用罪数理论中想象竞合犯原则。上述司法解释的规定被学者概括为“主犯决定说”，并成为主要被批判的对象。但经过分析发现，实际上上述《解释》、《纪要》是在坚持犯罪构成符合性的前提下，在对不同犯罪参与人在共同犯罪中的作用加以区分后，最终以实行行为在共同犯罪中起重要作用者的性质对该共同犯罪予以定性。所以，将司法解释的主张解释为“主犯实行犯说”应该更为准确。主犯实行犯说其实并不是一种新创的学说，而是对现有司法解释进行的合理解释，体现了其真实的客观含义。主犯实行犯说认为，无论是单独犯罪，，还是共同犯罪，其均是逐渐将法益侵害危险扩大的过程。对该过程起到绝对支配作用者，其对犯罪的重要作用是显而易见的，该犯罪的法律性质以其行为性质予以界定应该是妥当的。所以，如果能够判断出谁是共同犯罪的绝对支配作用者，也就能够准确对共同犯罪予以定性。如何确定该绝对支配作用者呢？主犯实行犯说认为，应当将主犯实行犯认定为对犯罪起绝对支配作用者。而同时出现两个绝对支配作用者的情况也可能出现，此时应当适用想象竞合犯理论对其从一重处。由此，以主犯实行犯的行为性质界定共同犯罪的性质，能够达到既定罪准确又量刑均衡的公正结果。但是因为其与主犯决定说的渊源，主犯实行犯说必然受到与对主犯决定说相同的质疑。对此，主犯实行犯说予以了相应的回应，而且通过对这些质疑的回答进一步表明了其合理性。
[Abstract]:There are both differences and similarities between the crime of embezzlement and the crime of embezzlement. It is easy to identify the crime alone, but the problem is complicated when the subject of duty embezzlement crime and the subject of corruption crime form a joint crime. As to the problem of duty encroachment and how to identify the joint crime in the case of embezzlement, the criminal law theorists and the practical circles have also been under constant war, and have put forward different viewpoints respectively. To sum up, the main viewpoints include conviction theory and unified conviction theory. Because of the different theoretical basis, the two theories are divided into different theoretical views. It includes the implementation of the behavior decision theory, the main authority decision theory, the core role theory, the imaginative co-offender theory, the obligation important person to carry out the crime theory and so on. However, through the comparison and analysis of these theories, it is found that although they are more or less reasonable, they all have some shortcomings: they are too one-sided and lack universal applicability. Or the final conclusion may result in a crime and punishment imbalance, and so on. In response to this problem, on 27 June 2000, the Supreme people's Court and the Supreme people's Procuratorate jointly promulgated the draft decision on the trial of Corruption. Explanation on how to identify several problems of Joint Crime in Duty embezzlement cases (hereinafter referred to as "explanation"), which stipulates that the joint crime shall be convicted according to the criminal nature of the principal offender. Three years later, the Supreme people's Court issued the Summary of the Symposium on the work of the National Courts in handling Economic crimes (hereinafter referred to as "the Summary"), which determined that the principle of final conviction was that the conviction should be based on the nature of the crime committed by the principal offender. It also supplements the principle of imaginative concurrence in the theory of the number of crimes. The provisions of the above judicial interpretation are summarized as "the decision of the principal offender", and become the main object of criticism. But after analysis, it is found that, in fact, the above "explanation", "summary", on the premise of insisting on the conformity of the constitution of the crime, after distinguishing the role of different crime participants in the joint crime, Finally, the joint crime is characterized by the nature of the person who plays an important role in the joint crime. Therefore, it should be more accurate to interpret the proposition of judicial interpretation as "the principal offender carries out the crime theory". The theory of principal offender is not a new theory, but a reasonable explanation of the existing judicial explanation, which embodies its true objective meaning. The principal offender believes that whether it is a single crime or a joint crime, it is a process of gradually expanding the risk of legal interest infringement. It is obvious that those who play an absolute dominant role in the process play an important role in the crime, and it should be appropriate to define the legal nature of the crime by its nature of conduct. Therefore, if we can judge who is the absolute dominator of the joint crime, we can accurately define the joint crime. How to determine the absolute dominant role? The principal offender believes that the principal offender should be regarded as the person who plays an absolute dominating role in the crime. At the same time, the situation of two absolute dominators may also occur, which should be applied to the theory of imaginative co-occurrences. Therefore, defining the nature of the joint crime by the nature of the principal offender's behavior can achieve the fair result of accurate conviction and balanced sentencing. However, because of its origin with the principal offender's decision theory, the principal offender's practice crime theory is bound to be questioned the same as the principal offender's decision. In response to this, the principal offender's theory of criminal practice gives a corresponding response, and through the answers to these questions, it further demonstrates its reasonableness.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.3

【参考文献】