携带凶器盗窃行为的司法适用分析

发布时间：2018-11-10 18:48

【摘要】：2012年正式施行的《刑法修正案（八）》，在对于盗窃罪原有规定基础上增加了3种新的盗窃情形，即：入户盗窃、扒窃与携带凶器盗窃。这三种“新型盗窃”不仅没有明确的入罪数额限制，在其犯罪形态上也呈现出不同于普通盗窃的特点，，尤其是其中对携带凶器盗窃行为的规定，其认定标准、犯罪形态、处罚范围以及与刑法其他罪名的竞合上都存在诸多不明晰的地方。目前《刑法修正案八》已实施一周年有余，通过对携带凶器盗窃相关的案例收集与数据整理可以发现，新增的携带凶器盗窃规定在司法实践中的适用效果仍有着不理想之处，理论界与实务界的适用争议也屡见不鲜。虽然2013年最高人民法院最新颁布的盗窃罪司法解释中，对携带凶器盗窃行为进行了再次规范，但仍需要对其入罪效果和罪名的内涵、外延作更进一步的分析界定，通过对立法目的分析、刑法条文梳理以及相关司法解释的新老比较，借鉴参考现有的实务做法和案例，提出对于携带凶器盗窃行为在司法实务中进行具体适用的可行性方案，以期能在司法实务层面实现《刑法修正案八》对于本罪修正时所希望达到的现实效果。本文共分为四章：第一章着重阐述携带凶器盗窃的入罪背景与立法目的，分析立法将其纳入刑事法规范的合理性与必要性，从而为后文具体分析携带凶器盗窃行为的入罪标准等问题提供方向指导。首先将携带凶器盗窃入罪符合我国对于犯罪的社会危害性评价体系；其次，携带凶器盗窃行为入罪有利于更好实现刑法预防犯罪的功能与目的；当前社会处于“风险社会”的特征背景下，携带凶器盗窃行为本身具有的潜在危险需要将其纳入刑法规范的范畴；最后，将携带凶器入罪符合当前立法趋势，是对其他国家刑事立法的有益借鉴。第二章对携带凶器盗窃行为的入罪标准进行界定，认为不宜将所有的携带凶器盗窃行为一律入罪，而需要合理运用刑法13条但书条款为其留出一定的出罪空间；同时对于携带凶器盗窃在犯罪形态上的行为犯、结果犯与危险犯之争提出自己的看法，主张上述概念属于既未遂认定标准分类，因而仍应将携带凶器盗窃归为结果犯。第三章对携带凶器盗窃中的“凶器”与“携带”的司法认定进行剖析，立足最新盗窃罪司法解释，厘清携带凶器盗窃中“凶器”的范围，并对“携带”行为的作用与时间起止点进行分析，要求在司法个案中仍需结合具体情形综合判定是否符合携带凶器盗窃情形。第四章将携带凶器盗窃行为与抢劫罪、携带凶器抢夺等可能发生竞合的罪状进行比较，明晰携带凶器盗窃与抢劫罪（加重）、转化型抢劫与携带凶器抢夺之间的区分界限，并对上述罪状之间的转化情形进行分类探讨，避免司法适用中的混淆。
[Abstract]:In 2012, the Criminal Law Amendment (8) added three new cases of theft on the basis of the original provisions of the crime of larceny, that is, burglary, pickpocketing and theft with murder weapons. These three kinds of "new-type theft" not only have no definite limit on the amount of criminal conviction, but also show different characteristics from ordinary theft in their criminal form, especially the provisions on the theft with the murder weapon, the standard of their identification and the form of crime. There are many unclear areas in the scope of punishment and the competition with other crimes in criminal law. At present, the eighth Amendment to the Criminal Law has been implemented for more than one year. Through the collection and data collation of cases related to the theft of armed weapons, it can be found that the application effect of the newly added provisions on the theft of armed murder weapons in judicial practice is still unsatisfactory. Theory and practice of the application of controversy is also common. Although the new judicial interpretation of theft issued by the Supreme people's Court in 2013 regulates the theft with the murder weapon again, it still needs to further analyze and define the effect of its incrimination and the connotation of the charge. By analyzing the legislative purpose, combing the articles of criminal law and comparing the new and old related judicial interpretations, and referring to the existing practice practices and cases, this paper puts forward a feasible scheme for the specific application of the theft with the murder weapon in the judicial practice. The purpose of this paper is to realize the practical effect of the amendment of the criminal law in the judicial practice. This paper is divided into four chapters: the first chapter focuses on the criminal background and legislative purpose of carrying the murder weapon theft, and analyzes the rationality and necessity of bringing it into the criminal law norm. So as to provide guidance for the following specific analysis of the crime with the murder weapon theft standards and other issues. Firstly, the crime of theft with murder weapon is in line with the social harmfulness evaluation system of crime in our country; secondly, the crime of theft with murder weapon is beneficial to the function and purpose of crime prevention in criminal law. At present, society is in the background of "risk society", the potential danger of theft with murder weapon itself needs to be brought into the scope of criminal law norms. Finally, the crime of carrying murder weapon conforms to the current legislative trend and is a useful reference for other countries' criminal legislation. The second chapter defines the criminal standard of the theft with the murder weapon, and thinks that it is not appropriate to incriminate all the theft with the murder weapon, but it is necessary to make use of the proviso of 13 articles of the criminal law to set aside a certain space for the crime. At the same time, the author puts forward his own view on the criminal form of armed theft, and argues that the above concept belongs to the standard classification of attempted identification, so it should still be classified as the resultant crime. The third chapter analyzes the judicial cognizance of "murder weapon" and "carrying" in the theft with murder weapon, based on the latest judicial explanation of theft, clarifies the scope of "murder weapon" in the theft with murder weapon. By analyzing the action of "carrying" and the beginning and ending point of time, it is necessary to comprehensively judge whether it is in accordance with the situation of theft with the murder weapon in the judicial case. In the fourth chapter, the author makes a comparison between the theft with murder weapon and the crime of robbery, the robbery with murder weapon, and so on, so as to make clear the distinction between the theft with murder weapon and the crime of robbery (aggravated), the difference between robbery with weapon and robbery with weapon. In order to avoid the confusion in the judicial application, the transformation between the above crimes is classified and discussed.
【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

【参考文献】