本文選題：犯罪成本 + 局限性�。� 參考：《中國刑事法雜志》2012年08期

【摘要】：司法實務(wù)中,行為人為實施詐騙而向被害人提供的財物一般被稱為犯罪成本,在理論界和實務(wù)界,對于詐騙罪中犯罪數(shù)額是否扣除犯罪成本問題一直存在著較大的爭議。犯罪成本從其概念內(nèi)涵來看,在詐騙罪中運用是不確切的,這也是產(chǎn)生分歧的主要原因所在。用"誘價"一詞來替代犯罪成本,可避免由于概念本身的問題所產(chǎn)生的分歧。作為詐騙罪中獨有的概念,誘價定義可以直接體現(xiàn)出詐騙罪區(qū)別于其他財產(chǎn)犯罪的本質(zhì)特征,并為我們研究詐騙罪提供一個嶄新的視角。在詐騙罪認定過程中,應(yīng)當(dāng)堅持以扣除誘價之后被害人的凈財富損失作為評判是否存在實質(zhì)財產(chǎn)損害的實體標(biāo)準,這既是刑法謙抑之下的結(jié)論,也是司法實踐的需要。
[Abstract]:In judicial practice, the property provided by the perpetrator to the victim for the purpose of fraud is generally referred to as the cost of crime. In the theoretical and practical circles, there has been a great dispute about whether the amount of the crime in the crime of fraud is deducted from the cost of the crime. From its concept connotation, the application of crime cost in the crime of fraud is imprecise, which is also the main reason for the difference. Replacing the cost of crime with the word "inductive price" can avoid differences arising from the problem of the concept itself. As a unique concept in the crime of fraud, the definition of induced price can directly reflect the essential characteristics of the crime of fraud and other property crimes, and provide a new perspective for us to study the crime of fraud. In the process of determining the crime of fraud, the net wealth loss of the victim after deducting the inducement price should be regarded as the substantive standard to judge the existence of substantial property damage, which is not only the conclusion under the restraint of criminal law, but also the need of judicial practice.
【作者單位】： 江蘇省揚州市廣陵區(qū)人民檢察院;
【分類號】：D924.3;D920.5

【共引文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 江偉;片面共犯的成立范圍與處罰依據(jù)[J];安慶師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2004年04期

2 陳興旺;陳娟娟;;我國相對負刑事責(zé)任年齡的立法缺陷與重構(gòu)[J];北京青年政治學(xué)院學(xué)報;2006年02期

3 周力娜;秦永紅;;經(jīng)濟犯罪與財產(chǎn)犯罪的比較性認識[J];成都航空職業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報;2005年04期

4 冉，

本文編號：2115512