本文選題：占有 + 代為保管��； 參考：《吉林大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著我國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展，侵犯財(cái)產(chǎn)類(lèi)的犯罪已成為我國(guó)當(dāng)前最常見(jiàn)多發(fā)的犯罪類(lèi)型，而這其中又尤以盜竊罪為眾罪之首。而侵占罪作為侵犯財(cái)產(chǎn)罪中的又一重要犯罪類(lèi)型，其與盜竊罪一樣都是以平和手段去侵犯他人之財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)，在外在行為表現(xiàn)等諸多方面的區(qū)別并非可以輕易分辨出來(lái)，在實(shí)踐中出現(xiàn)了很多將二者加以混淆的情況。本文采用比較研究法與實(shí)證研究法相結(jié)合，從盜竊罪與侵占罪的保護(hù)客體、對(duì)象和行為三個(gè)大的方面來(lái)分析研究區(qū)分二者的界限。 本文的主體部分分別為“盜竊罪與侵占罪的保護(hù)客體之區(qū)別”、“盜竊罪與侵占罪的對(duì)象區(qū)別”以及“盜竊罪與侵占罪行為方式之區(qū)別”。其中分別是從犯罪客體、犯罪對(duì)象和犯罪行為的角度研究盜竊罪與侵占罪的界限。 本文首先分析盜竊罪與侵占罪保護(hù)客體的區(qū)別。二者保護(hù)客體的區(qū)別體現(xiàn)在對(duì)占有的侵害和對(duì)所有權(quán)的侵害之間的區(qū)別。因而占有歸屬的判斷，是本文重點(diǎn)論述的內(nèi)容，也是盜竊罪與侵占罪區(qū)別的核心，，可以說(shuō)占有歸屬的判斷直接關(guān)系到盜竊罪與侵占罪的正確認(rèn)定。在論述占有歸屬的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)時(shí)首先介紹“占有”概念的刑法內(nèi)涵及構(gòu)成要素，在介紹“占有”的刑法內(nèi)涵時(shí)還要厘清刑法中的“占有”與民法中“占有”的不同涵義。然后筆者再介紹在實(shí)踐中常會(huì)遇到的幾種特殊情況下盜竊罪與侵占罪如何界定。具體包括殺害死者后的死者財(cái)物占有的認(rèn)定、受委托的包裝物占有的認(rèn)定、平行關(guān)系下占有的認(rèn)定以及主從關(guān)系下占有的認(rèn)定。通過(guò)對(duì)這些特殊情況下占有關(guān)系如何認(rèn)定的闡述會(huì)使我們正確理解盜竊罪與侵占罪的區(qū)別乃至更好地指導(dǎo)司法實(shí)踐。 本文接下來(lái)分析盜竊罪與侵占罪對(duì)象的區(qū)別。筆者對(duì)侵占罪中“代為保管物”的認(rèn)定、“遺忘物”的認(rèn)定以及“埋藏物”的認(rèn)定進(jìn)行了深入細(xì)致的分析。此三者均為侵占罪的行為對(duì)象，具有特殊性。接著筆者再分析盜竊罪的行為對(duì)象的內(nèi)涵和外延以及如何界定盜竊罪的對(duì)象。通過(guò)分析侵占罪對(duì)象的特殊性以及盜竊罪的對(duì)象我們就可以總結(jié)出盜竊罪與侵占罪在對(duì)象上的區(qū)別。 本文最后分析盜竊罪與侵占罪行為的區(qū)別。本部分分別介紹盜竊罪與侵占罪不同的行為方式。盜竊罪的行為方式是以平和手段破壞原占有關(guān)系，而建立新的占有關(guān)系，并且不限于“秘密竊取”；而侵占罪的行為方式并沒(méi)有破壞占有關(guān)系，而是將占有轉(zhuǎn)化為不法所有，拒不退還或者拒不交出。在此，筆者還對(duì)侵占罪行為方式中的“非法占為己有”、“拒不退還”和“拒不交出”的含義以及相互之間的關(guān)系作了深入的分析。通過(guò)分析二者各自的行為方式的不同特點(diǎn)，我們就可以總結(jié)出盜竊罪與侵占罪的行為方式區(qū)別基準(zhǔn)。 筆者通過(guò)對(duì)以上內(nèi)容的分析研究，最終可以總結(jié)出區(qū)分盜竊罪與侵占罪界限的邏輯路徑。盜竊罪與侵占罪的區(qū)別首先體現(xiàn)在客體的區(qū)別上，而占有的判斷又是區(qū)分盜竊罪與侵占罪界限的核心。盜竊罪與侵占罪的區(qū)別還體現(xiàn)在對(duì)象的區(qū)別和行為的區(qū)別上。在對(duì)象上，侵占罪的對(duì)象比盜竊罪的對(duì)象更為特殊，限于代為保管的他人財(cái)物、他人的遺忘物以及埋藏物，而盜竊罪的對(duì)象則沒(méi)有此限定。在行為上盜竊罪表現(xiàn)為采用平和手段轉(zhuǎn)移占有，而侵占罪表現(xiàn)為易占有為不法所有。
[Abstract]:With the development of our country's economy, the crime of encroaching property has become the most common type of crime in our country, especially the crime of theft, which is the most important crime. And the crime of encroachment, as another important type of crime in the crime of property infringement, is the same as the crime of theft, which infringes the property rights of others by means of peace and means. The difference between the performance and many other aspects can not be easily identified. In practice, there are a lot of cases that confuse the two. This paper combines the comparative study method and the empirical study method to analyze the distinction between the two parties from the three aspects of the protection object, the object and the behavior of the crime of theft and embezzlement.
The main part of this article is "the difference between the protection object of the crime of theft and the crime of embezzlement", "the difference between the object of the crime of theft and the crime of embezzlement" and the difference between the crime and the way of the crime of embezzlement. The distinction between the crime and the crime of the crime of embezzlement is studied respectively, which are the boundaries of the crime of theft and the crime of embezzlement from the angle of the object of crime, the object of the crime and the crime.
This article first analyzes the difference between the crime of theft and the object of the protection of the crime of embezzlement. The difference between the two objects of protection is reflected in the difference between the infringement of possession and the infringement of the ownership. Therefore, the judgment of possession is the content of this article and the core of the difference between the crime of theft and the crime of embezzlement, and it can be said that the judgment of possession is directly related to the crime of possession. To the correct identification of the crime of theft and embezzlement. First, it introduces the connotation and elements of the criminal law of the concept of possession in the discussion of the standard of possession and ownership. In the introduction of the connotation of the criminal law of "possession", we should also clarify the different meanings of "possession" in the criminal law and the "possession" in the civil law. How to define the crime of theft and embezzlement under several special circumstances. The identification of the possession of the property and property of the dead after the death of the dead, the identification of the possession of the entrusted package, the cognizance of the possession under the parallel relationship and the identification of the possession under the relationship between the principal and the subordinate. Correctly understand the difference between theft and embezzlement and even better guide the judicial practice.
This article then analyzes the difference between the crime of theft and the object of the crime of embezzlement. The author makes a thorough and detailed analysis of the cognizance of "the custodian" in the crime of embezzlement, the cognizance of the "forgotten thing" and the identification of the "buried object". These three are all the objects of the crime of embezzlement and are special. Then the author then analyses the object of the crime of theft. Intension and extension and how to define the object of larceny. Through the analysis of the particularity of the object of embezzlement and the object of the theft, we can sum up the difference between the crime of theft and the crime of embezzlement.
This article finally analyzes the difference between the crime of theft and the act of embezzlement. This part introduces the different ways of theft and the crime of embezzlement. The behavior of the crime is to destroy the original relationship by means of peace and means, and to establish a new possession and not be confined to the "secret theft", and the behavior of the crime of embezzlement has not been destroyed. The author also makes an in-depth analysis of the meaning of "illegal occupation for oneself", the meaning of "refusing to return" and "refusing to be out of hand" and the relationship between each other. By analyzing the different characteristics of the respective behavior patterns of the two parties, I have also made an in-depth analysis of the meaning of "illegal occupation of oneself", "refusing to return" and "refusing to surrender" in the manner of the crime of embezzlement. We can sum up the difference between theft and embezzlement.
Through the analysis and study of the above content, the author can finally sum up the logical path of distinguishing the boundary between the crime of larceny and the crime of embezzlement. The difference between the crime of theft and the crime of embezzlement is first reflected in the distinction of the object, and the judgement of possession is the core of the distinction between the crime of theft and the crime of embezzlement. On the object, the object of the crime of embezzlement is more special than the object of the crime of theft, which is limited to the belongings of others, the forgotten objects and the buried objects, and the object of the theft is not limited. In the act of theft, the crime of theft is transferred by means of peaceful means, and the crime of embezzlement is easy to occupy. All.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D924.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 買(mǎi)園園;;侵占罪客觀行為要件爭(zhēng)議問(wèn)題探析[J];河北法學(xué);2009年11期

2 周光權(quán);侵占罪疑難問(wèn)題研究[J];法學(xué)研究;2002年03期

3 董玉庭;盜竊罪與侵占罪界限研究[J];人民檢察;2001年04期

4 于世忠;侵占罪與盜竊罪的界定[J];法制與社會(huì)發(fā)展;2002年03期

5 趙秉志,周加海;侵占罪疑難實(shí)務(wù)問(wèn)題[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2001年05期

6 何帆;論侵占罪中的“拒不退還或者拒不交出”[J];學(xué)術(shù)探索;2001年S1期

7 黎宏;;論財(cái)產(chǎn)犯中的占有[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2009年01期

8 趙秉志,于志剛;論侵占罪的犯罪對(duì)象[J];政治與法律;1999年02期

本文編號(hào)：1854112