本文選題：虛擬貨幣 + 犯罪對象��； 參考：《中國青年政治學院》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：本文從個案入手,對司法實踐中的爭議問題——虛擬貨幣的法律性質(zhì)——進行研究。在司法實踐中存在著這樣一個問題,虛擬貨幣是否屬于刑法中的財物,屬于何種財物是需要仔細琢磨推敲的。這決定著罪與非罪的定性問題,以及此罪與彼罪的界限。本文通過對相關(guān)文獻的研究發(fā)現(xiàn),關(guān)于虛擬貨幣的性質(zhì)并沒有形成有力的通說,在理論上主要分為兩派觀點:物權(quán)說以及債權(quán)說。虛擬貨幣介于物權(quán)與債權(quán)的中間地帶,模糊不清。所以厘清物權(quán)以及債權(quán)的界限乃本文所需要解決的第一個問題。從歷史的視野來看物(物權(quán)的客體)與債權(quán)是一個從相對統(tǒng)一到對立分立的過程。在古羅馬時期狹義的物與債權(quán)一并歸于廣義的物的范疇。所不同的是,狹義的物就是現(xiàn)代民法中的物,當時被稱為有體物。而債權(quán)(確切的說是債的利益)則與其他權(quán)利(其他利益)一起一并歸于無體物的范疇。有體物和無體物則屬于廣義的物的不同分類。有體物和無體物的區(qū)別在于客觀存在以及觀念的存在。所以延續(xù)這種邏輯在現(xiàn)代民法上判定物權(quán)與債權(quán)的區(qū)別首要考量的因素也是客觀存在�？陀^存在的便是物。另外需要從經(jīng)濟價值的角度衡量某物,判斷此物之上是否存在值得“擁有”的物權(quán)。虛擬貨幣本身的確存在物的“細胞”,但這些“細胞”并不是主干部分。虛擬貨幣的實質(zhì)是由這些物的“細胞”所拼湊出的債權(quán)的“軀體”。虛擬貨幣應(yīng)該是一種債權(quán),是供應(yīng)商與用戶之間所簽訂的支付服務(wù)合同。虛擬貨幣作為一種債權(quán),在我國的刑法的理論上是可以作為盜竊罪的犯罪對象的。但本文認為這種觀點是值得商榷的。基于兩點考慮:第一,出于對法律體系的尊重;第二,出于法制統(tǒng)一的考慮。在民事的法律體系中盜竊行為是無法改變債的民事法律關(guān)系的,所以盜竊行為是無法將債權(quán)“偷”走的。本文所討論的是刑法問題,在討論刑事上的定罪問題的時候,基于刑法的價值是可以不考慮民法的體系。但如果在實踐之中刑法和民法持兩種截然不同的觀點,會造成司法實踐中的矛盾判決。即在刑事審判之中認為債權(quán)因為盜竊行為而消失,但在民事審判之中債權(quán)依然存在。而消滅的債權(quán)和存在的債權(quán)又同時指向同一個債。這是讓人無法接受的。所以對于虛擬貨幣的侵犯不應(yīng)當以盜竊罪來規(guī)制而以詐騙罪來定性為宜。
[Abstract]:This paper, starting with a case study, studies the legal nature of fictitious currency, which is a controversial issue in judicial practice. There is such a problem in judicial practice that whether virtual money belongs to the property in criminal law and what kind of property should be carefully considered. This determines the nature of crime and non-crime, and the boundary between this crime and that crime. Through the study of relevant literature, this paper finds that there is no strong general theory about the nature of virtual currency, which is mainly divided into two viewpoints in theory: the theory of real right and the theory of creditor's rights. The virtual currency is between the real right and the creditor's right. So to clarify the boundary of real right and creditor's right is the first problem to be solved in this paper. From the perspective of history, the object of real right and the creditor's rights are a process from relative unity to opposites. In the ancient Roman period, the narrow sense of things and the creditor's rights came under the broad category of things. What is different is that the narrow-sense thing is the thing in the modern civil law, at that time is called the body thing. Claims (or, to be exact, interests of debt), together with other rights (other interests), fall under the category of incorporeal. Objects with and without objects are classified in a broad sense. The difference between bodies and objects lies in the objective existence and the existence of ideas. Therefore, the primary consideration of the difference between real right and creditor's right in modern civil law is the objective existence of this logic. What exists objectively is the object. In addition, we need to measure something from the angle of economic value and determine whether there is a property right worth owning. Virtual money itself does exist in "cells", but these "cells" are not the backbone. The essence of virtual money is the body of claims made up of the cells of these things. Virtual currency should be a kind of creditor's right, is the payment service contract between the supplier and the user. As a kind of creditor's right, virtual currency can be regarded as the object of larceny in theory in our country's criminal law. But this article thinks this kind of viewpoint is worth to question. Based on two considerations: first, out of respect for the legal system; second, out of the consideration of the unity of the legal system. In the civil legal system, theft can not change the civil legal relationship of debt, so the theft can not "steal" the creditor's rights. This paper discusses the problem of criminal law. When discussing the problem of criminal conviction, the value of criminal law is that the system of civil law can not be considered. However, if criminal law and civil law hold two different viewpoints in practice, they will result in contradictory judgments in judicial practice. In criminal trial, claims disappear because of theft, but they still exist in civil trials. The extermination of the creditor's rights and the existence of claims at the same time point to the same debt. This is unacceptable. Therefore, the infringement of virtual currency should not be regulated by theft but characterized by fraud.
【學位授予單位】：中國青年政治學院
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924.3

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 方新軍;;蓋尤斯無體物概念的建構(gòu)與分解[J];法學研究;2006年04期

2 肖松平;;刑法第265條探究——兼論我國財產(chǎn)犯罪的犯罪對象[J];政治與法律;2007年05期

，

本文編號：1804775