论盗窃罪中的扒窃行为

发布时间：2018-08-31 09:20

【摘要】：随着《中华人民共和国刑法》的几次修改及相关司法解释的出台，作为侵犯财产型犯罪的重点，盗窃罪的定罪量刑标准在不断变化，并细分出了多种类型。扒窃行为在2011年《刑法修正案(八)》中被正式列入刑法惩罚的范围，作为盗窃罪的新类型之一予以打击；2013年两高关于盗窃罪的司法解释，也进一步明确扒窃行为的概念：在公共场所或者公共交通工具上盗窃他人随身携带财物的,应当认定为扒窃。对扒窃行为的定罪标准，理论上少有研究，各地司法实践认定也千差万别。在新的司法解释出台后梳理扒窃行为入罪的历史沿革，并对其重新解读与研究实有必要。扒窃行为应具有场所的特点性——公共场所、对象的特定性——他人随身携带的财物、主观的非法占有性，其社会危害性、行为人的主观恶性、犯罪成本较低及刑事立法基本价值倾向的变化等方面决定了扒窃入刑的正当性。我国对扒窃的打击力度也属于不断增大的过程，从最开始的行政处罚或劳教，，只有情节严重的才进行刑事处罚，到现在的扒窃直接入刑；从结合次数和数额作为定罪标准，到只考虑次数标准阶段到现在的纯粹行为标准。实践中应准确理解和区分扒窃与其他盗窃罪类型之间的关系：扒窃数额未达到较大数额标准时，如果情节严重，应当以扒窃行为认定盗窃罪，扒窃数额达到较大标准时，成立盗窃罪既可以扒窃行为入罪，也可以数额较大入罪；多次盗窃中的盗窃主要是指未达到数额较大标准的盗窃行为，包括不能单独入罪的扒窃行为；携带凶器盗窃中的盗窃不包括扒窃行为；扒窃与入户盗窃是两个完全相互独立的盗窃罪类型。现行关于扒窃的立法中存在着诸多不足和缺陷，如《刑法修正案（八）》将扒窃行为一律纳入刑法规制范围，不利于贯彻刑法的人道主义思想，还造成了规范之间的冲突、司法资源浪费等，建议可对扒窃行为的概念进行进一步界定，对公共场所、随身携带的财物做出合理认定，并明确扒窃入刑的前提条件，控制扒窃入刑的打击范围，合理定罪量刑。
[Abstract]:With the revision of the Criminal Law of the people's Republic of China and the introduction of the related judicial interpretation, as the focus of the crime of infringing on property, the standard of conviction and sentencing for the crime of larceny is constantly changing and has been subdivided into many types. Pickpocketing was formally included in the Criminal Law Amendment (VIII) in 2011 as one of the new types of larceny. Further clarify the concept of pickpocketing: theft of other people's belongings in public places or public transport should be regarded as pickpocketing. There is little research on the standard of conviction of pickpocketing, and the judicial practice is very different. After the introduction of the new judicial explanation, it is necessary to carve out the history of the crime of pickpocketing, and reinterpret and study it. Pickpocketing should have the characteristics of public places, specific objects, property carried by others, subjective illegal possession, social harmfulness, subjective malignancy of the doer, The low cost of crime and the change of basic value tendency of criminal legislation determine the legitimacy of pickpocketing. The crackdown on pickpocketing in our country also belongs to an increasing process. From the initial administrative punishment or re-education through labour, only those with serious circumstances are given criminal punishment, and now pickpocketing is directly punished; from the combination of times and amounts as the standard of conviction, To consider only the frequency of the standard stage to the present pure standard of conduct. In practice, the relationship between pickpocketing and other types of larceny should be accurately understood and distinguished: when the amount of pickpocketing is not up to the standard of larger amount, if the circumstances are serious, the crime of theft should be determined by the act of pickpocketing, and when the amount of pickpocketing reaches a larger standard, The establishment of larceny can not only incriminate the act of pickpocketing, but also incriminate a large amount of money. The theft of multiple times mainly refers to the act of theft which does not meet the standard of large amount, including the act of pickpocketing which cannot be criminalized alone. Theft with murder weapon does not include pickpocketing; pickpocketing and burglary are two totally independent types of theft. There are many deficiencies and defects in the current legislation on pickpocketing. For example, the Criminal Law Amendment (8) brings pickpocketing into the scope of criminal law, which is not conducive to carrying out the humanitarian thought of criminal law, and it also causes conflicts between norms. It is suggested that the concept of pickpocketing can be further defined, the public places and the property carried with them should be reasonably identified, the preconditions of pickpocketing and criminal punishment should be clearly defined, and the scope of the attack on pickpocketing should be controlled. A reasonable conviction and sentence.
【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】