论“扒窃”

发布时间：2018-07-23 12:48

【摘要】：“扒窃”在《刑法修正案八》后被明文规定到刑法条文中,但是由于其行为本身的特殊属性以及具体操作规范的匮乏,使得扒窃案件在司法中的认定中出现了诸多问题,引起了不少争议,其中有关扒窃是否一定要发生在“公共场所”、如何界定“公共场所”、“随身”携带的财物如何理解、是否必须携带凶器扒窃以及扒窃是否有数额要求等因素争议颇多。为了能够解决争议、更好地将该扒窃条文适用到实践,就必须对上述案件所引发的争议进行深层次的分析。在认定扒窃的两大传统必要性要素中,“公共场所”并非是认定扒窃成立与否的必要条件,而仅是认定情节环节中的重要参考因素之一,认定扒窃的关键在于司法解释中的“随身”财物,这种“随身”性不仅侵害了被害人的财产法益,更是一种对人身法益的潜在威胁,故要将扒窃的认定回归到法益指导下的重心中来,看清扒窃行为背后所侵害的多元化法益,这不仅和扒窃的本质相符合,也能达到认定上的统一。对于认定的关键——“随身”财物的理性认识也应当从“扒”的本源出发对其进行实质性的解释,该实质性的解释要从解释论的基本原理出发,建立在法益观念的指导下使其达到有责性和违法性的程度相当。进而,在具体的司法实践中要厘清“公共场所”所处的地位以及“公共场所”和扒窃认定之间的关系,在把握住认定核心的基础下,将“公共场所”和“随身”携带进行认定上的有机统一。最后,笔者由对扒窃认定关键的分析进一步提出规制刑法中的“扒窃”可采取的完善措施,对立法机关、司法机关提出适当的完善建议,希望能给之后处理扒窃行为案件带来一定的作用。
[Abstract]:"pickpocketing" was explicitly stipulated in the articles of the Criminal Law after the eighth Amendment to the Criminal Law. However, due to the special property of its own behavior and the lack of specific operational norms, there are many problems in the determination of pickpocketing cases in the administration of justice. There has been a lot of controversy over whether pickpocketing must take place in "public places", how to define "public places" and how to understand the property carried with them. Factors such as whether pickpocketing must be carried and whether there is a requirement for pickpocketing are controversial. In order to resolve the dispute and better apply the pickpocket clause to practice, it is necessary to make a deep analysis of the dispute caused by the above cases. Among the two elements of traditional necessity in determining pickpocketing, "public place" is not a necessary condition for determining whether pickpocketing is established or not, but is only one of the important reference factors in determining the plot link. Determining that the key to pickpocketing lies in the "carry-on" property in judicial interpretation. This "carry-on" nature not only infringes upon the property interests of the victims, but also a potential threat to the personal legal interests. Therefore, it is necessary to return the identification of pickpocketing to the center of gravity under the guidance of legal interests, to see clearly the plural legal benefits infringed by pickpocketing, which is not only in line with the essence of pickpocketing, but also can achieve the unity of identification. The rational cognition of "carry-on" property should also be explained from its origin, which should be based on the basic principles of the theory of interpretation. Under the guidance of the concept of legal interest, the degree of responsibility and illegality is equal. Then, in the specific judicial practice, we should clarify the position of "public place" and the relationship between "public place" and pickpocketing identification, on the basis of grasping the core of identification. Carry "public place" and "carry with you" to identify the organic unity. Finally, by the analysis of the key to the identification of pickpocketing, the author further puts forward the measures that can be taken to regulate the "pickpocketing" in the criminal law, and puts forward appropriate suggestions to the legislature and the judiciary. Hope to be able to deal with pickpocketing cases after a certain role.
【学位授予单位】：南京师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D924.35

【参考文献】