本文選題：盜竊罪　切入點(diǎn)：秘密性　出處：《西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：我國(guó)學(xué)界對(duì)盜竊罪已經(jīng)有很深入的以及很廣泛的研究,其中對(duì)盜竊罪的研究的內(nèi)容包括盜竊罪的各個(gè)構(gòu)成要件、盜竊罪與其他罪的區(qū)別、也有分析盜竊罪的秘密取財(cái)行為和公然取財(cái)行為等內(nèi)容,但是筆者沒(méi)有發(fā)現(xiàn)專(zhuān)門(mén)對(duì)于盜竊罪秘密性的認(rèn)定角度的進(jìn)行分析的文章。我國(guó)法律上對(duì)盜竊罪秘密性的認(rèn)定是通過(guò)主觀(guān)要件是實(shí)現(xiàn)的,但是也存在實(shí)踐中在同一個(gè)案例與被害人和社會(huì)一般人認(rèn)定角度產(chǎn)生沖突的結(jié)果。因此,論文的研究目的是通過(guò)分析認(rèn)定盜竊罪秘密性的不同角度,分析以行為人角度在體系內(nèi)認(rèn)定的秘密性的合理性和優(yōu)越性,并且分析在行為人認(rèn)定的角度下是否存在缺陷。 論文分為引言、正文兩大部分,其中正文部分分為三章。 論文的引言主要引用盜竊罪的法律規(guī)定以及司法解釋,肯定了秘密性的存在,然后通過(guò)案例中引導(dǎo)出論文的論題。 正文第一章是關(guān)于盜竊罪以及盜竊罪的秘密性。在這一章中首先強(qiáng)調(diào)了本篇論文僅在現(xiàn)行刑法下討論盜竊罪的一般形態(tài)的構(gòu)成要件,其次對(duì)其他國(guó)家或地區(qū)的法律中對(duì)盜竊罪是否解釋為秘密竊取或者將秘密竊取作為盜竊罪的本質(zhì)特征,分析其他國(guó)家和地區(qū)的法律能否通過(guò)比較的方法解讀我國(guó)的盜竊罪的秘密性,最后分析了秘密竊取的主觀(guān)表現(xiàn)和客觀(guān)表現(xiàn)以及對(duì)一些學(xué)者不同意將秘密性作為盜竊罪本質(zhì)特征的理由分析。 第二章的主要內(nèi)容是犯罪主觀(guān)認(rèn)定角度。在這一部分中首先引導(dǎo)出在犯罪論體系內(nèi)區(qū)分出的兩種標(biāo)準(zhǔn)——事實(shí)判斷和價(jià)值判斷,對(duì)犯罪主觀(guān)認(rèn)定角度作出判斷。其次結(jié)合事實(shí)判斷和價(jià)值判斷兩種標(biāo)準(zhǔn),分析三類(lèi)主體對(duì)犯罪主觀(guān)認(rèn)定角度的依據(jù)。最后,犯罪構(gòu)成無(wú)法脫離主客觀(guān)相統(tǒng)一原則,犯罪主觀(guān)認(rèn)定中也應(yīng)當(dāng)遵循這一原則。 第三章的內(nèi)容是盜竊罪秘密性的認(rèn)定角度。以行為人的認(rèn)定角度、被害人的認(rèn)定角度以及社會(huì)一般人的認(rèn)定角度對(duì)盜竊罪秘密性認(rèn)定的內(nèi)容,再對(duì)比這幾個(gè)認(rèn)定角度在體系內(nèi)的合理性和可行性,分析不同認(rèn)定角度之間的缺陷,進(jìn)而得出堅(jiān)持行為人的主觀(guān)認(rèn)定的選擇。 本文通過(guò)對(duì)盜竊罪秘密性的認(rèn)定角度進(jìn)行分析,雖然主觀(guān)的認(rèn)定角度存在其他的可能性,但是本文的結(jié)論是應(yīng)當(dāng)堅(jiān)持以行為人角度對(duì)秘密性進(jìn)行認(rèn)定,對(duì)于盜竊罪認(rèn)定中出現(xiàn)的缺陷,如果在現(xiàn)行刑法下可以解決的,那么通過(guò)現(xiàn)行刑法法律規(guī)定與法律原則進(jìn)行解決,但是如果在現(xiàn)行刑法下不可以解決的,那么通過(guò)建立通過(guò)立法或者對(duì)司法解釋進(jìn)行修訂加以解決。
[Abstract]:There has been a deep and extensive study on the crime of larceny in the academic circles of our country. Among them, the contents of the study on the crime of larceny include the constituent elements of the crime of larceny, the difference between the crime of larceny and other crimes.There is also an analysis of the theft of the secret behavior and openly take the content of the property, but the author did not find a special for the theft of the secret of the perspective of the analysis of the article.In our country, the secrecy of larceny is recognized through subjective elements, but there is also the result of conflict between the same case and the recognition of the victim and the general person in the society in practice.The paper is divided into introduction, two parts of the text, in which the text is divided into three chapters.The introduction of this paper mainly refers to the legal provisions of theft and judicial interpretation, affirms the existence of secrecy, and then leads the thesis through cases.The first chapter is about larceny and the secrecy of larceny.In this chapter, it is emphasized that this paper only discusses the constitutive elements of the general form of larceny under the current criminal law.Secondly, whether the crime of theft is interpreted as secret theft in the laws of other countries or regions, or whether secret theft is regarded as the essential characteristic of the crime of larceny,Whether the laws of other countries and regions can interpret the secrecy of larceny in our country through comparative methods,Finally, it analyzes the subjective and objective manifestations of secret theft and the reasons why some scholars do not agree to regard secrecy as the essential characteristic of theft.The main content of the second chapter is the angle of subjective determination of crime.In this part, two kinds of standards-fact judgment and value judgment, which are distinguished in the system of crime theory, are first introduced, and the judgment of subjective cognizance of crime is made.Secondly, combining the two standards of fact judgment and value judgment, the paper analyzes the basis of the subjective cognizance of the three kinds of subjects.Finally, the constitution of crime can not be separated from the principle of unity of subjectivity and objectivity, and this principle should be followed in subjective determination of crime.The content of the third chapter is the angle of ascertaining the secrecy of larceny.From the perspective of the actor, the victim and the general public, the author compares the rationality and feasibility of the identification in the system.This paper analyzes the defects between different recognition angles, and then obtains the choice of the subjective identification of the persisting actor.Though there are other possibilities in subjective cognizance, the conclusion of this paper is that we should insist on the identification of secrecy from the angle of the perpetrator.For the defects in the identification of the crime of larceny, if they can be solved under the existing criminal law, then they can be solved through the legal provisions and principles of the existing criminal law, but if they cannot be solved under the existing criminal law,Then through the establishment of legislation or judicial interpretation of the amendment to be resolved.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D924.35

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 齊文遠(yuǎn),張克文;對(duì)盜竊罪客體要件的再探討[J];法商研究(中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2000年01期

2 張明楷;;盜竊與搶奪的界限[J];法學(xué)家;2006年02期

3 山口厚;王昭武;;盜竊罪研究[J];東方法學(xué);2011年06期

4 阮齊林;;論盜竊與搶奪界分的實(shí)益、傾向和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2013年01期

5 徐啟明;孔祥參;;淺析盜竊罪中“秘密竊取”的認(rèn)定[J];湖南公安高等專(zhuān)科學(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2009年03期

6 張明楷;新刑法與法益侵害說(shuō)[J];法學(xué)研究;2000年01期

7 何慶仁;;刑法保護(hù)誰(shuí)——關(guān)于刑法任務(wù)的一種追問(wèn)[J];刑法論叢;2010年02期

8 汪世濤;;論“平和手段”下公然取財(cái)?shù)男袨樾再|(zhì)[J];四川警察學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年04期

9 陳興良;;利用柜員機(jī)故障惡意取款行為之定性研究[J];中外法學(xué);2009年01期

10 蔡英;盜竊罪犯罪客體及對(duì)象研究[J];西南政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2005年04期

，

本文編號(hào)：1711969