本文選題：受賄罪 + 定罪處罰標準��； 參考：《河北大學》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：新中國成立至1979年《刑法》施行前,我國對受賄罪采取了“計贓論罪”的處罰標準,且依附于貪污罪;1979年《刑法》施行后至1997年《刑法》施行前,對受賄罪采取了“以情節(jié)為中心”的處罰標準,且具有獨立性;1997年《刑法》施行以來,對受賄罪采取的是“以數(shù)額為中心,兼顧情節(jié)”的處罰標準,且依附于貪污罪;2015年頒布的《刑法修正案(九)》將其修改為“概括數(shù)額+情節(jié)”的處罰標準,但依然依附于貪污罪。從我國受賄罪定罪處罰標準的立法演進來看,不僅受賄數(shù)額是受賄罪處罰的必要條件,而且依附于貪污罪,與此同時實現(xiàn)了由一元標準向二元標準的轉(zhuǎn)變。我國現(xiàn)行受賄罪的定罪處罰標準存在諸多問題。首先,規(guī)定受賄罪與貪污罪共用一個定罪處罰標準,不僅難以反映受賄罪不同于貪污罪的罪質(zhì),突顯受賄罪處罰中情節(jié)的作用,正確認識受賄罪的社會危害性,而且不能充分體現(xiàn)罪刑相適應原則,同時加大了犯罪偵查的難度。其次,規(guī)定“以數(shù)額為基礎”的定罪處罰標準不但無法全面反映受賄罪的危害結(jié)果,而且無法規(guī)制受賄非財產(chǎn)性利益的情形,同時無法準確把握數(shù)額與其他情節(jié)的關系。最后,把受賄罪的定罪處罰標準限定于“數(shù)額+情節(jié)”并依附于貪污罪,不僅不利于刑法目的和嚴懲腐敗目標的實現(xiàn),而且不利于預防犯罪的刑罰目的的實現(xiàn)和刑罰教育功能的發(fā)揮。當前,關于如何完善受賄罪的定罪處罰標準,在理論上主要存在“數(shù)額與情節(jié)并重”說、“以情節(jié)為中心”說、和“以數(shù)額為中心,兼顧其他情節(jié)”說三種學說�！皵�(shù)額與情節(jié)并重”說比較符合實際,但無法將接受或索取非財產(chǎn)性利益的行為納入調(diào)整范圍;“以情節(jié)為中心”說過于激進,因而不可取;“以數(shù)額為中心,兼顧其他情節(jié)”說不僅不利于刑法立法理念的更新,也不利于反腐敗目的的現(xiàn)實。通過考察域外刑法對受賄罪的規(guī)定不難發(fā)現(xiàn),受賄罪的定罪處罰標準不僅獨立于貪污罪,而且具有多樣性和較強的綜合性。以域外受賄罪定罪處罰標準為參照,從我國嚴懲受賄罪的刑事政策立場來看,我國刑法應當擴大受賄對象的范圍,設立獨立的定罪處罰標準和法定刑,完善“數(shù)額與情節(jié)并重”的二元彈性定罪處罰標準,調(diào)整受賄數(shù)額。
[Abstract]:From the founding of New China to the implementation of the Criminal Law in 1979, China adopted the penalty standard of "counting on stolen goods" for the crime of accepting bribes, and attached to the crime of corruption, after the implementation of the Criminal Law in 1979 to before the implementation of the Criminal Law in 1997. The crime of accepting bribes has adopted the penalty standard of "taking the circumstances as the center" and has its independence. Since the implementation of the Criminal Law in 1997, the penalty standard for the crime of accepting bribes has been "taking the amount as the center and taking the circumstances into account". The amendment (9) of the Criminal Law promulgated in 2015 modifies it as the penalty standard of "summary amount circumstances", but it is still attached to the crime of corruption. From the legislative evolution of the standard of conviction and punishment for bribery in China, not only the amount of bribery is the necessary condition for punishment of bribery, but also depends on the crime of corruption. At the same time, it realizes the transformation from unitary standard to dualistic standard. There are many problems in the standard of conviction and punishment of bribery crime in our country. First of all, it is not only difficult to reflect the quality of bribery crime different from corruption crime, but also to highlight the role of circumstances in the punishment of bribery crime, and to correctly understand the social harmfulness of bribery crime by stipulating that bribery crime and corruption crime share the same standard of conviction and punishment. And can not fully reflect the principle of adaptation of crime and punishment, at the same time increased the difficulty of criminal investigation. Secondly, the standard of conviction and punishment based on amount can not only not fully reflect the harmful results of bribery, but also can not regulate the situation of non-property interests of bribery, and can not accurately grasp the relationship between the amount and other circumstances. Finally, limiting the standard of conviction and punishment of bribery to "amount circumstances" and attaching to the crime of corruption is not only unfavorable to the realization of the goal of criminal law and severe punishment of corruption. Moreover, it is unfavorable to the realization of penalty purpose and the exertion of penalty education function. At present, there are three theories on how to perfect the standard of conviction and punishment for the crime of accepting bribes: "the amount is equal to the circumstances", "taking the circumstances as the center", and "taking the amount as the center, giving consideration to other circumstances". The theory of "equal amount and circumstances" is more realistic, but it is not possible to include in the scope of the adjustment the acceptance or solicitation of non-property interests; the notion of "circumstance as the centre" is too radical to be desirable; and "the amount is the centre", Taking other circumstances into consideration is not only unfavorable to the renewal of criminal law legislation concept, but also to the reality of anti-corruption purpose. It is not difficult to find that the standard of conviction and punishment of bribery crime is not only independent from the crime of corruption, but also has diversity and strong comprehensiveness. Taking the standard of conviction and punishment for crime of accepting bribes as a reference, from the standpoint of our criminal policy of severely punishing the crime of accepting bribes, the criminal law of our country should expand the scope of the object of bribery and establish an independent standard of conviction and punishment and legal punishment. To perfect the dual flexible standard of conviction and punishment and adjust the amount of bribery.
【學位授予單位】：河北大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D924.392

【相似文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 ;最高法:食品安全案件從重定罪處罰[J];工商行政管理;2011年24期

2 張復友;;對張某的行為如何定罪處罰?[J];法學天地;2001年10期

3 劉再立;該案被告人應如何定罪處罰?[J];湖南林業(yè);2002年04期

4 陳仕學;論“定罪處罰”規(guī)定[J];湖南省政法管理干部學院學報;2002年S2期

5 魏娟玲;;《刑法》中援引定罪處罰規(guī)定的適用及評價[J];中國檢察官;2007年02期

6 曾進;陳挺;;外資企業(yè)偷稅定罪處罰的尷尬[J];稅收征納;2007年11期

7 車玉梅;陳蕾;;盜竊轉(zhuǎn)化搶劫未遂但數(shù)額不大能否定罪處罰[J];中國商界(上半月);2010年12期

8 ;盜竊數(shù)額較大的財物未遂的,是否定罪處罰?[J];人民司法;2010年21期

9 顧萬炎;;對“依照處罰較重的規(guī)定定罪處罰”的重新理解[J];中國檢察官;2011年04期

10 ;盜竊案件定罪處罰中一個值得研究的問題[J];人民司法;1982年10期

相關會議論文 前2條

1 章天馳;謝昱;;多人傷害致人死亡案中的損傷鑒定探討[A];中國法醫(yī)學會全國第十五次法醫(yī)臨床學學術研討會論文集[C];2012年

2 孫云云;;重大環(huán)境污染事故罪主觀方面之粗探——從江蘇鹽城2·20水污染案入手[A];當代法學論壇（二○一○年第3輯）[C];2010年

相關重要報紙文章 前10條

1 浙江省湖州市吳興區(qū)人民法院 郭文利　沈金汝;盜竊未遂如何定罪處罰[N];人民法院報;2008年

2 湖南省長沙市開福區(qū)檢察院 胡萍邋盛俊杰;盜竊罪既遂才應定罪處罰嗎[N];檢察日報;2008年

3 吳江平;土地犯罪如何定罪處罰[N];江蘇法制報;2000年

4 浙江省慈溪市人民檢察院 洪新波　李勛文;“以販養(yǎng)吸”,“販”與“吸”怎么區(qū)分[N];檢察日報;2009年

5 記者 徐日丹;明確通過信息網(wǎng)絡傳播侵權作品行為定罪處罰標準[N];檢察日報;2011年

6 本報記者 曹欣;依法嚴懲貪污賄賂 定罪處罰新類犯罪[N];北京社區(qū)報;2011年

7 河北大學政法學院教授 孟慶華;瀆職犯罪共同犯罪的理解適用[N];檢察日報;2013年

8 邢世偉;食品安全案件從重定罪處罰 失職瀆職犯罪加大財產(chǎn)刑處罰力度[N];中國食品報;2011年

9 張軍 奚東峰 張樹華;打罵配偶致其自殺如何定罪處罰[N];檢察日報;2006年

10 上海市高級人民法院 羅開卷;暴力、威脅手段下強迫交易罪與搶劫罪的區(qū)分[N];人民法院報;2011年

相關碩士學位論文 前8條

1 張阿妹;“依照處罰較重的規(guī)定定罪處罰”研究[D];華僑大學;2015年

2 王瑩;交通肇事罪共同犯罪研究[D];黑龍江大學;2015年

3 孫超;受賄罪定罪處罰標準研究[D];河北大學;2017年

4 姚力;論組織出賣人體器官罪的定罪處罰[D];中國政法大學;2013年

5 熊明;親屬間犯罪研究[D];廣西民族大學;2012年

6 麻永和;鬧市飆車致人死亡行為研究[D];西南政法大學;2010年

7 郁軍偉;盜竊未遂問題研究[D];西南政法大學;2011年

8 許明波;偷開被扣自己車輛行為之定性研究[D];西南財經(jīng)大學;2010年

，

本文編號：1824848