本文選題：電梯　切入點：生產、銷售偽劣產品罪　出處：《西南政法大學》2011年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

【摘要】：近期我國各地電梯安全事故頻發(fā),國家一方面加強了電梯的維護和檢修,另一方面也加大了對電梯質量的監(jiān)督力度。電梯安全是公共安全的重要組成部分,電梯事故的發(fā)生也會擾亂人民群眾正常的生產、生活秩序,而誘發(fā)事故的原因多種多樣,停電、使用不當、質量問題等都有可能。如果電梯存在質量問題,除了涉及民法中的產品質量瑕疵或缺陷之外,還可能涉及生產、銷售偽劣產品、非法經營等刑事犯罪,而由于在這些罪名之間存在著交叉領域,使得具體案件的認定頗具難度。 本文由前幾年發(fā)生的一起涉及電梯質量的刑事案件即“李秋天組裝銷售電梯案”引出本案是否應被定罪及應定何罪的問題,結合刑法語境下國家規(guī)定的劃分標準,追認的適用范圍、罪刑法定原則下空白罪狀存在的合理性,以及生產、銷售偽劣產品罪、以危險方法危害公共安全罪、非法經營罪等罪的犯罪構成,采用案例分析與法理分析相結合的方法就爭議問題分別進行了分析,論證了不構成犯罪觀點的錯誤性,得出了本案應定非法經營罪的最終結論。并希望經過本案的分析,梳理這幾個罪名之間的區(qū)別,可以為日后相關案件的司法認定提供幫助。 本文共分為三個部分。第一部分為案情簡介。簡要介紹了李秋天組裝銷售電梯案件始末以及司法機關對案件的處理結果。 第二部分為李秋天案分歧意見的歸納總結。在本案中,就犯罪嫌疑人李秋天的行為是否構成犯罪以及構成何罪存在廣泛爭議,主要集中在生產銷售偽劣產品罪、以危險方法危害公共安全罪、非法經營罪這三個罪名之間。 第三部分是本文的重點,即結合犯罪構成理論對案件進行法理分析。首先立足案件本身論證了不構成犯罪觀點的錯誤性,其次針對本文第二部分列明爭議的三個罪名進行逐個分析,提出了李秋天的行為不是生產、銷售偽劣產品,也不是以危險方法危害公共安全,而是非法經營,擾亂市場經濟秩序,應以非法經營罪論處的意見。
[Abstract]:Recently, elevator safety accidents have occurred frequently in various parts of our country. On the one hand, the state has strengthened the maintenance and maintenance of elevators, on the other hand, it has also increased its supervision of elevator quality. Elevator safety is an important part of public safety. The occurrence of elevator accidents will also disturb the normal production and living order of the people, and the causes of the accidents may vary, such as power outages, improper use, quality problems, etc. If there are quality problems in the elevators, In addition to the product quality defects or defects in the civil law, it may also involve the production, sale of fake and inferior products, illegal operation and other criminal offences, but due to the existence of overlapping fields between these charges, it is quite difficult to identify specific cases. In this paper, a criminal case involving elevator quality occurred in the past few years, that is, "Li Qiu assembling and selling Elevator case", leads to the question of whether this case should be convicted and what kind of offence should be convicted, combined with the standard of division stipulated by the state in the context of criminal law. The scope of application of the ratification, the reasonableness of the existence of blank crime under the principle of prescribed punishment for a crime, the crime of producing and selling fake and inferior products, the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means, the crime of illegal operation, etc. Using the method of case analysis and legal theory analysis, this paper analyzes the dispute separately, demonstrates the error of the view that does not constitute a crime, and draws the final conclusion that the case should be convicted of the crime of illegal business operation, and hopes to pass through the analysis of this case. Combing the differences between these charges can provide help for judicial determination of related cases in the future. This article is divided into three parts. The first part is the brief case of the case. The second part is the summary of different opinions in the Li Qiu case. In this case, there are extensive disputes on whether the behavior of the suspect Li Qiu constitutes a crime and what kind of crime, which is mainly focused on the crime of producing and selling fake and inferior products. Between the three crimes of endangering public safety by dangerous means and illegal operation. The third part is the focus of this paper, that is, combining the theory of criminal constitution to analyze the legal theory of cases. Firstly, based on the case itself, it demonstrates the error of the view that does not constitute a crime. Secondly, according to the three controversial charges listed in the second part of this article, it is pointed out that Li Qiu's behavior is not to produce, sell fake or inferior products, nor to endanger public safety by dangerous means, but to operate illegally. Disturbing the order of market economy, should be treated as illegal operation crime opinion.
【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D924.3;D920.5

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 但偉;論非法經營罪[J];法商研究(中南政法學院學報);1999年02期

2 陳惜珍;;論非法經營罪存在的合理性[J];法學雜志;2007年05期

3 梁慧星;中國產品責任法——兼論假冒偽劣之根源和對策[J];法學;2001年06期

4 張貞蓉;;淺析罪刑法定主義下的空白罪狀問題[J];法制與社會;2010年02期

5 彭輔順;陳鵬展;;非法經營罪研究述評[J];江蘇警官學院學報;2005年06期

6 于改之,包雯;生產、銷售偽劣商品犯罪若干問題研究[J];河北法學;2005年11期

7 楊歡進;王娟;;中國打擊假冒偽劣的立法缺陷與完善[J];經濟與管理;2010年03期

8 龐達;;淺論罪刑法定原則的適用[J];中國商界(上半月);2010年08期

9 蔡英;;罪刑法定對刑法適用解釋的制約與局限[J];理論與改革;2011年02期

10 史書;;析危害公共安全罪的“公共安全”[J];長沙民政職業(yè)技術學院學報;2008年03期

相關重要報紙文章 前2條

1 赫興旺;[N];法制日報;2006年

2 邵新;[N];檢察日報;2006年

，

本文編號：1569268