盗窃网络虚拟财产行为定性的教义学分析——兼与刘明祥教授商榷

发布时间：2019-02-23 19:14

【摘要】：通过刑法规制盗窃网络虚拟财产的行为已经取得基本共识,但是以何种罪名论处还存在较大争议。虽然以非法获取计算机信息系统数据罪论处是较为有力的主张,但将其贯彻到底,不仅在入罪逻辑、法益归类等问题上存在不足,而且难以保证特殊情形下处理结论的正确。从教义学的视角展开具体分析,可以明确网络虚拟财产在民法上属于物权的对象,在刑法中属于财物的范畴,且属于无体物形态;通过对刑法第264条与第265条的关系进行梳理,可以明确刑法第264条在规范上并未否定盗窃罪的对象包括无体物。通过解构刑法第264条的具体内容,可以通过"数额型盗窃罪的量刑规则"以及"情节型盗窃罪的量刑规则"来具体确定盗窃网络虚拟财产的价值以及量刑幅度。
[Abstract]:There has been a basic consensus on the regulation of theft of network virtual property through criminal law, but there are still some controversies on what kind of charges to deal with. Although it is more powerful to condemn the crime of illegally obtaining data from computer information system, it is not only insufficient in the logic of incrimination and classification of legal interests, but also difficult to ensure the correctness of the conclusion under special circumstances. Through the concrete analysis from the perspective of dogmatics, it is clear that the network virtual property belongs to the object of real right in the civil law, belongs to the category of property in the criminal law, and belongs to the form of substance without substance. By combing the relationship between Article 264 and Article 265 of Criminal Law, it is clear that Article 264 of Criminal Law does not deny that the object of larceny includes incorporeal object. By deconstructing the specific content of Article 264 of the Criminal Law, we can determine the value and sentencing range of the theft of network virtual property by "the sentencing rules of the crime of larceny of the amount type" and "the sentencing rules of the crime of plot type theft".
【作者单位】：西南政法大学法学院;
【基金】：国家社科基金一般项目“刑法适用公众参与机制研究”(13BFX057) 中央财政支持地方高校“特殊群体权利保护与犯罪预防研究” 西南政法大学青年教师学术团队资助项目(2016XZCXTD—07)的阶段性成果
【分类号】：D924.3

【相似文献】