本文選題：盜竊　切入點：侵占　出處：《湖南大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：2008年，在深圳機場發(fā)生了備受各方關(guān)注的機場黃金案，該案主人公梁麗作為深圳機場一名普通的清潔員工，在工作期間“撿”到價值約300萬元的黃金。梁麗基于自己清潔工的職責(zé)，在機場自己的清潔范圍內(nèi)，對一個小紙箱的處分行為，有可能使她陷入犯罪的深淵，該案中梁麗的行為是犯罪還是一般違法行為？是構(gòu)成盜竊罪還是構(gòu)成侵占罪？圍繞于此，在司法機關(guān)、理論學(xué)界和普通民眾中引起了激烈的爭議，長時間引人關(guān)注。產(chǎn)生這些爭議的原因是梁麗案件本身具有復(fù)雜性以及我國相關(guān)法律規(guī)定的局限性。從解決實際問題的角度出發(fā)，我們在對該案進行分析過程中，首先就研究背景，研究目的，研究內(nèi)容和方法，，理論與實踐意義等幾個方面進行了闡述，表明對該案例進行研究和探析的必要性。為了比較客觀的分析問題，我們詳細介紹了該案的案情經(jīng)過，公安機關(guān)、司法機關(guān)處理案件的過程以及最后的處理結(jié)果。對該案的幾個關(guān)鍵性的爭議點進行歸納，包括公安、司法機關(guān)的處理意見，法學(xué)專家和法律工作者對本案的不同觀點以及相關(guān)的分析思路。針對梁麗是否主觀上有“非法占有目的”，是否符合“秘密竊取”的特征，是否符合侵占罪中“拒不退還或者拒不交出”成立要件，我們通過結(jié)合我國法學(xué)理論和各種爭議學(xué)說展開法律分析，我們認為，梁麗的行為不構(gòu)成盜竊罪，因為在主觀上她不存在盜竊罪中的“非法占有目的”，客觀上也沒有實施“秘密竊取”的行為；梁麗的行為也不構(gòu)成侵占罪，因為她沒有“拒不退還或者拒不交出”黃金首飾。最后，我們通過分析得出結(jié)論，梁麗的行為是一種“拾金而昧”的行為，其實就是一般性的違法行為，只能成立民法上不當(dāng)?shù)美�，�?yīng)當(dāng)按照有關(guān)法律承擔(dān)民事責(zé)任。她的行為雖然有錯，但還沒有上升到要使用刑法進行處罰的程度。
[Abstract]:In 2008, there was an airport gold case at Shenzhen Airport, in which Liang Li, the hero of the case, was an ordinary cleaning employee at Shenzhen Airport. During her work, she "picked up" some 3 million yuan worth of gold. Liang Li-kee 's duties as a cleaner, in the airport's own cleaning area, the punishment of a small carton may plunge her into the abyss of crime. Is Liang Li's behavior a crime or a general violation of the law in this case? Is it a crime of theft or a crime of embezzlement? Around this, there has been fierce controversy among the judiciary, the academic circle of theory and the general public. These disputes were caused by the complexity of the Liang Li case itself and the limitations of the relevant laws and regulations of our country. From the point of view of solving practical problems, in the course of our analysis of the case, Firstly, this paper expounds the background, purpose, content and method, theoretical and practical significance of the case, and points out the necessity of studying and analyzing the case. We introduced in detail the course of the case, the process of handling the case by the public security organs, the judicial organs and the final outcome. We summarized several key points of dispute in the case, including the opinions of the public security and judicial organs on the handling of the case. Different views of legal experts and legal workers on this case and relevant analysis ideas. As to whether Liang Li has subjectively "illegal possession purpose" and whether it conforms to the characteristics of "secret theft", Whether or not it conforms to the requirements of "refusing to return or refuse to surrender" in the crime of embezzlement, by combining the legal theory of our country with various controversial theories, we believe that Liang Li's behavior does not constitute the crime of larceny. Because subjectively she did not have the "purpose of illegal possession" in the crime of larceny, nor objectively did she carry out the act of "secret theft"; nor did Liang Li's behavior constitute a crime of embezzlement. Because she did not "refuse to return or surrender" gold jewelry. Finally, through analysis, we came to the conclusion that Liang Li's behavior was a kind of "collection of gold and ignorance", which was in fact a general violation of the law. She should bear civil liability in accordance with the relevant laws. Although her behavior is wrong, it has not yet risen to the level of punishment by using criminal law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924.3;D920.5

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 杜國強;關(guān)于侵占罪若干問題的思考[J];法學(xué)評論;2002年06期

2 董玉庭;盜竊罪客觀方面再探[J];吉林大學(xué)社會科學(xué)學(xué)報;2001年03期

3 劉明祥;刑法中的非法占有目的[J];法學(xué)研究;2000年02期

4 王鈞柏;侵占罪主要爭議問題研究[J];人民檢察;1999年04期

5 董進宇;盜竊犯罪再認識及延伸思考[J];法制與社會發(fā)展;1999年01期

6 儲槐植,梁根林;貪污罪論要——兼論《刑法》第394條之適用[J];中國法學(xué);1998年04期

7 張明楷;;刑法解釋理念[J];國家檢察官學(xué)院學(xué)報;2008年06期

8 陳增寶;對“非法占有目的的產(chǎn)生時間”的初步探索[J];浙江工商大學(xué)學(xué)報;2004年05期

本文編號：1609279