刑法介入非公企业财产权保护的逻辑反思
发布时间：2018-07-25 13:43
【摘要】：刑法保护非公企业财产权要恪守平等原则,坚持"最后保护手段"的防线。非公企业财产权刑法保护的失当,既有"重国有""轻私有"的历史因素,又有司法"过罪化"的现实因素。从刑事政策来看,立法者有意识地界分公有财产与非公有财产,导致公私领域同类行为不同定性、同类犯罪不同刑罚的不平等现象。从具体司法实践来看,司法机关过早介入非公企业财产纠纷以及处理程序失当,导致某些不宜入罪的行为乱入罪。要想疏解非公企业财产权刑法保护的困顿,关键要实现非公企业财产犯罪与国有单位财产犯罪在罪名、法定刑结构以及法定刑幅度上的对应,同时在能动司法中引入克制因素,防止刑事司法权的过早介入与不当运用。
[Abstract]:In order to protect the property rights of non-public enterprises, the criminal law should abide by the principle of equality and adhere to the defense line of "last protection means". The improper protection of property rights in non-public enterprises includes the historical factors of "attaching importance to state ownership" and "neglecting private ownership", as well as the realistic factors of judicial "over-criminalization". From the point of view of criminal policy, the legislator consciously divides the land boundary into public property and non-public property, which leads to the inequality of the same kind of behavior in the public and private fields and the different penalties of the same kind of crime. From the concrete judicial practice, the judicial organs get involved in the property disputes of non-public enterprises prematurely and deal with the improper procedures, which leads to some unincriminating behaviors. In order to alleviate the difficulty of the criminal law protection of non-public enterprises' property rights, the key is to realize the correspondence between non-public enterprise property crimes and state-owned unit property crimes in charge, legal punishment structure and legal penalty range, and at the same time, to introduce restraint factors into the active administration of justice. To prevent the premature intervention and improper application of criminal judicial power.
【作者单位】： 东南大学反腐败法治研究中心;
【基金】：教育部人文社科规划项目“刑法出罪机制问题研究”(项目编号:2015YJA820015)的阶段性研究成果 江苏高校哲学社会科学重点研究基地基金资助
【分类号】：D924.3
本文编号：2143998
[Abstract]:In order to protect the property rights of non-public enterprises, the criminal law should abide by the principle of equality and adhere to the defense line of "last protection means". The improper protection of property rights in non-public enterprises includes the historical factors of "attaching importance to state ownership" and "neglecting private ownership", as well as the realistic factors of judicial "over-criminalization". From the point of view of criminal policy, the legislator consciously divides the land boundary into public property and non-public property, which leads to the inequality of the same kind of behavior in the public and private fields and the different penalties of the same kind of crime. From the concrete judicial practice, the judicial organs get involved in the property disputes of non-public enterprises prematurely and deal with the improper procedures, which leads to some unincriminating behaviors. In order to alleviate the difficulty of the criminal law protection of non-public enterprises' property rights, the key is to realize the correspondence between non-public enterprise property crimes and state-owned unit property crimes in charge, legal punishment structure and legal penalty range, and at the same time, to introduce restraint factors into the active administration of justice. To prevent the premature intervention and improper application of criminal judicial power.
【作者单位】： 东南大学反腐败法治研究中心;
【基金】：教育部人文社科规划项目“刑法出罪机制问题研究”(项目编号:2015YJA820015)的阶段性研究成果 江苏高校哲学社会科学重点研究基地基金资助
【分类号】：D924.3
【相似文献】
相关期刊论文 前1条
1 白鸥，，阎宏斌;私吞公有财产应如何定性[J];人民检察;1996年04期
本文编号：2143998
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/xingfalunwen/2143998.html
