扒窃型盗窃罪的法律适用研究

发布时间：2018-08-13 09:02

【摘要】：扒窃作为盗窃罪的特别窃取方式，在构成要件上，扒窃与盗窃罪没有差异，主观要件是以非法占有为目的，客观要件是秘密转移占有。“公共场所”，，“公共交通工具”和“随身携带”则是扒窃在构成要件中的要素。借鉴民法中对“公共场所”的定义，扒窃中的“公共场所”不仅要在功能上符合不特定的社会公众可以进入的要求，而且在时间上还应处在面向公众开放期间。“公共交通工具”要求具有承载不特定多数人的功能，同时应处于运营状态。“随身携带”与“携带”在语义上没有差异，其强调的是具有控制对象的外观行为和内在意思。从法益保护的角度出发，“扒窃”的行为人未经他人允许侵入私人的身体附近，同时窃取他人财物，侵害他人的财产权益和人身权益。多数扒窃行为具有团伙作案、专业作案的性质，严重危害社会的公共秩序，扒窃入刑具有其合理性。从行为人的视角出发，作为多发、常发的犯罪，扒窃的一般预防要重视，同时，基于行为人的人身危险性，特殊预防也不可废，一般预防与特殊预防要密切联系和统一，但在具体情况下要有所侧重。就目前的司法实践来说，“扒窃入刑”最大的问题是犯罪圈的扩大，导致有限的司法资源的紧缺。通过司法解释，对扒窃的起刑点数额做出要求，有违扒窃入刑的目的，架空法律文本；通过文理解释为携带凶器扒窃，有违文法逻辑和用语习惯；直接通过“但书”出罪，则有损犯罪构成体系的逻辑性；考量行为人的人身危险性，则是只是量刑环节的技术操作。就目前的犯罪构成体系而言，本文建议在“但书”精神的指引下，细化司法解释，合理明确的扒窃的构成要件要素的内涵，在对是否构成犯罪有了明确判断的前提下，在量刑环节充分考量行为人的人身危险性。在扒窃与其他类型盗窃行为的认定顺序上，特殊类型的盗窃罪入罪门槛应低于普通类型，而在特殊类型的盗窃罪内部应该是先看是否为“入户”、“携带凶器”或者“扒窃”，再看是否“多次”。也就说，盗窃罪中具体窃取行为的认定顺序为，携带凶器盗窃=扒窃=入室盗窃多次盗窃盗窃数额较大。对扒窃行为，在司法实践中，一般不认为存在未遂，除非窃取到的东西毫无价值，但是存在犯罪中止和犯罪预备。在扒窃的量刑配置上，应重视行为人的主观恶性和人身危险性，对未成年人、老人和共同犯罪的犯罪分子区别对待。
[Abstract]:Pickpocketing is a special way of theft. There is no difference between pickpocketing and larceny. The subjective element is illegal possession and the objective element is secret transfer possession. "Public place", "public transport" and "carrying with you" are the elements of pickpocketing. Referring to the definition of "public place" in civil law, the "public place" in pickpocketing should not only meet the requirements of non-specific social public access, but also be open to the public in time. Public transport means should have the function of carrying an unspecified number of people and should be in operation at the same time. There is no semantic difference between carry-on and carry-on, which emphasizes the appearance behavior and intrinsic meaning of the controlled object. From the angle of legal interest protection, the perpetrator of "pickpocketing" invades the private body without permission from others, and steals other people's property and personal rights and interests at the same time. Most pickpocketing acts have the nature of gang crime and professional crime, which seriously endanger the public order of society, so pickpocketing has its rationality. From the perspective of the doer, as a frequent crime, the general prevention of pickpocketing should be paid attention to. At the same time, based on the personal danger of the perpetrator, the special prevention should not be abolished, the general prevention and the special prevention should be closely linked and unified. However, in the specific circumstances to focus on. As far as the current judicial practice is concerned, the biggest problem of pickpocketing is the expansion of criminal circle, which leads to the shortage of limited judicial resources. Through the judicial interpretation, the amount of the penalty point of pickpocketing is required, which is contrary to the purpose of pickpocketing in the criminal law, and the text of the law is set up; it is illegal to use grammatical logic and lexical habits to interpret pickpocketing as carrying the murder weapon through literary and theoretical interpretation; the crime is committed directly through the proviso. It damages the logic of the criminal constitution system, and considers the personal dangerousness of the perpetrator, it is only the technical operation of the sentencing link. As far as the present constitution system of crime is concerned, this paper suggests that under the guidance of the spirit of "proviso", we should refine the judicial interpretation, reasonably define the connotation of the elements of the constituent elements of pickpocketing, and have a clear judgment on whether the crime constitutes a crime or not. The personal danger of the perpetrator should be fully considered in the sentencing link. In the order of identification of pickpocketing and other types of theft, the threshold of the special type of larceny should be lower than that of the ordinary type, and in the interior of the special type of theft, it should be first to see if it is "entering the house", "carrying the murder weapon" or "pickpocketing". And see if it's "many times". That is to say, the order of the specific theft in the crime of larceny is that the theft with the murder weapon = pickpocketing = the amount of multiple theft in the burglary is larger. In judicial practice, there is no attempt unless something stolen is of no value, but there are criminal suspensions and criminal preparations. In the sentencing allocation of pickpocketing, we should pay attention to the subjective malignancy and personal danger of the perpetrator, and treat the minors, the elderly and the criminals of the joint crime differently.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.3

【相似文献】