自力实现债权行为的刑法教义学分析——以我国《刑法》第238条第3款的性质为基础

发布时间：2019-07-05 18:13

【摘要】：确定我国《刑法》第238条第3款的性质,是解决自力实现债权行为刑法评价的逻辑前提。以欠缺"非法占有目的"或者"没有侵害本权"为由而肯定该款属于注意规定的观点,在论证上并不充分。认为该款属于法律拟制的观点,既不符合我国《刑法》关于财产犯罪保护法益的相关规定,同时混淆了权利侵害和财产损失的不同。基于刑事政策的诉求,该款规定应当属于注意规定,其主要教义学根据是欠缺法律上的财产损失。该款规定可以类推适用于以其他方式索取债权的行为;索取非法债权的行为原则上构成财产犯罪;对于索取超额债权的行为,原则上构成财产犯罪,在不具有可罚的违法性时,不应当将之评价为财产犯罪。
[Abstract]:Determining the nature of Article 238, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Law of our country is the logical premise to solve the problem of realizing the criminal law evaluation of creditor's rights. It is not sufficient to affirm that this paragraph belongs to attention regulation on the ground of lack of "illegal possession purpose" or "no infringement of this right". It is considered that this paragraph belongs to the legal formulation, which is not in line with the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law of our country on the protection of legal interests of property crime, and at the same time confuses the difference between infringement of rights and loss of property. Based on the claim of criminal policy, this provision should belong to the provisions of attention, and its main doctrinal basis is the lack of legal loss of property. The provisions of this paragraph may be applied by analogy to the act of claiming claims by other means; the act of claiming illegal claims constitutes, in principle, a property crime; for the act of claiming excess claims, in principle, it constitutes a property crime, which should not be evaluated as a property crime when there is no punishable illegality.
【作者单位】：华东政法大学法律学院;
【基金】：国家社会科学基金项目“法秩序统一性视野中的刑民矛盾及其排除”(项目编号:14BFX042)的阶段性研究成果之一华东政法大学法律科学研究院蒋太珂博士后为本文写作提供了诸多帮助,特致谢意
【分类号】：D924.3

【相似文献】