本文選題：欠條 + 危害結(jié)果��； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：作為民法上債權(quán)債務(wù)的證明，欠條被廣泛用于交易之中，但刑法未對(duì)欠條作出明確規(guī)定。而近年來(lái)，由欠條引發(fā)的刑事案件頻發(fā)，使得我們有必要梳理并明確欠條在刑法上的定位。本文通過對(duì)一典型案件的分析，闡述在進(jìn)行與欠條相關(guān)案件的違法性判斷時(shí)應(yīng)考慮的重點(diǎn)，同時(shí)分析財(cái)產(chǎn)類犯罪的法益并考量社會(huì)危害性的判斷方法，了解司法中對(duì)財(cái)產(chǎn)類疑難案件應(yīng)如何把握。 本文一共分為五個(gè)部分： 第一部分闡述了案件的基本情況，指出學(xué)者對(duì)該案件形成的“有罪論”與“無(wú)罪論”的對(duì)立觀點(diǎn)，再?gòu)闹锌偨Y(jié)出該案件的爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)。 第二部分是對(duì)陳某盜竊欠條這一單獨(dú)行為進(jìn)行刑法評(píng)價(jià)。首先，筆者評(píng)價(jià)財(cái)物和財(cái)產(chǎn)性利益的性質(zhì)，指出作為財(cái)產(chǎn)犯罪的對(duì)象必須具有經(jīng)濟(jì)價(jià)值，欠條本身并無(wú)價(jià)值，但它的特殊性在于其所體現(xiàn)的是王某的所有權(quán)，不能一概否定欠條不是財(cái)產(chǎn)犯罪的對(duì)象。其次，針對(duì)有學(xué)者提出的以行為主體的身份區(qū)分欠條的定位，筆者提出應(yīng)當(dāng)以危害結(jié)果作為欠條性質(zhì)的判斷依據(jù)，認(rèn)為陳某單獨(dú)盜竊欠條并無(wú)危害結(jié)果，得出無(wú)罪結(jié)論。在表明自己立場(chǎng)之后，最后一部分是對(duì)有罪論學(xué)者的觀點(diǎn)加以批判。 第三部分內(nèi)容圍繞陳、李二人買賣欠條行為展開討論。這一部分主要涉及的是有罪論者所提出的各自觀點(diǎn)：故意毀壞財(cái)物罪說、詐騙罪說、盜竊罪說、敲詐勒索罪說、掩飾、隱瞞犯罪所得、犯罪所得收益罪說和侵占罪說。同時(shí)，因該案在實(shí)踐中以侵占罪論處，故對(duì)侵占罪論給予更為詳細(xì)的解讀，最后指出上述觀點(diǎn)均不成立。筆者通過該部分“破”有罪論，為第四部分“立”無(wú)罪論作鋪墊。 第四部分是本人對(duì)陳、李二人買賣欠條行為的觀點(diǎn)。筆者分為兩部分進(jìn)行描述，第一部分是財(cái)產(chǎn)罪法益視野下的分析：首先，侵害法益是行為適用刑法的依據(jù)，因而只要認(rèn)定兩人買賣欠條的行為未造成法益受損，即可認(rèn)定兩人無(wú)罪。在此觀點(diǎn)上，筆者以相關(guān)學(xué)說來(lái)論證我國(guó)刑法保護(hù)的財(cái)產(chǎn)罪法益范圍，得出我國(guó)刑法并非完全接受“法律、經(jīng)濟(jì)財(cái)產(chǎn)說”，而是基于社會(huì)秩序的因素，也將民法上的不法利益納入刑法規(guī)制的范疇內(nèi)的結(jié)論。其次，以上述財(cái)產(chǎn)罪法益的范圍對(duì)現(xiàn)存的“所有權(quán)說”加以改造，將非法占有也視為財(cái)產(chǎn)罪法益。最后，對(duì)本案進(jìn)行探討：認(rèn)為無(wú)論是陳某的出賣行為，亦或是李某的購(gòu)買行為都未有危害結(jié)果，財(cái)產(chǎn)罪法益并未遭到侵害。第二部分是社會(huì)危害性視野下的分析：首先，筆者主張堅(jiān)持社會(huì)危害性在刑法中的基礎(chǔ)地位，同時(shí)指出學(xué)者們?cè)谏鐣?huì)危害性程度判斷方式具體化方面的努力；其次，提出應(yīng)將危害結(jié)果作為鑒別財(cái)產(chǎn)犯罪的社會(huì)危害性程度的核心；最后，結(jié)合本案得出無(wú)罪結(jié)論。 第五部分是由此案引發(fā)的思考的內(nèi)容。該部分分為兩個(gè)部分，其一是主張擴(kuò)充所有權(quán)說的內(nèi)涵，以包括債權(quán)和其他他物權(quán)在內(nèi)的廣義上的所有權(quán)取代狹義的、民法范疇內(nèi)的所有權(quán)。其二是主張?jiān)谒痉▽?shí)踐當(dāng)中，對(duì)于財(cái)產(chǎn)類犯罪案件，司法人員不應(yīng)以行為來(lái)認(rèn)定社會(huì)危害性，而應(yīng)當(dāng)更加注重危害結(jié)果，堅(jiān)持法益優(yōu)先的原則。
[Abstract]:As the proof of the creditor's right and debt in civil law, the debates are widely used in the transaction, but the criminal law does not make a clear regulation of the debt. In recent years, the frequent occurrence of criminal cases caused by the debates makes it necessary for us to sort out and clarify the position of the debt in the criminal law. The emphasis should be taken into consideration when judging the illegality of the piece. At the same time, it analyzes the legal benefits of property crimes and examines the judgment method of social harmfulness, and understands how to grasp the difficult cases of property in the judicature.
This article is divided into five parts:
The first part expounds the basic situation of the case, and points out the opposing views of the "guilt theory" and "the innocence theory" formed by the scholars, and then summarizes the controversial focus of the case.
The second part is to evaluate the individual behavior of Chen's larceny. First, the author appraise the nature of property and property interests, and point out that as the object of property crime, it must have economic value and the debt itself is not valuable, but its particularity lies in the ownership of Wang. It is the object of property crime. Secondly, in view of the position of the identity of the person who is distinguished by the principal of the behavior subject, the author proposes that the result of the harmful result should be judged as the basis of the nature of the debt. It is believed that there is no harmful result and the conclusion of innocence is obtained by Chen's single thief. After showing his position, the last part is the theory of guilt. The point of view is criticized.
The third part focuses on Chen and Li's behavior of buying and selling debts. This part mainly involves the respective views of the offending person: the crime of intentional destruction of property, the theory of fraud, the crime of theft, the extortion, the concealment of the proceeds of the crime, the crime of income and the crime of encroachment. In the case of the crime of embezzlement, we give a more detailed interpretation of the theory of the crime of encroachment, and finally point out that all the above views are not established. The author, through this part of the "break" theory of guilt, paves the way for the fourth part "standing" on the theory of innocence.
The fourth part is my views on the behavior of buying and selling debts between Chen and Li. The author is divided into two parts. The first part is the analysis of the legal interest of property crime. First, the infringement of legal interest is the basis of the criminal law. Therefore, as long as the behavior of the two persons is not damaged by the law, two people can be found innocent. On the point of view, the author demonstrates the legal interest scope of the property crime protected by criminal law in China, and concludes that our criminal law does not fully accept the "law, economic property", but is based on the factors of social order, and the legal interests of the civil law are included in the scope of the criminal law regulation. Secondly, the scope of the legal interest of the above property crime is present. The "ownership theory" is reformed and illegal possession is also regarded as the legal benefit of property crime. Finally, the case is discussed: the second part is the analysis under the social harmfulness: first, the author, the author, that the legal benefit of property crime has not been infringed on whether it is Chen's selling behavior or the purchase behavior of Li. Zhang persisted in the basic status of social harmfulness in the criminal law, and pointed out the efforts of scholars to concretely judge the way of judging the degree of social harmfulness; secondly, put forward that the harmful results should be the core of the social harmfulness of the crime of identifying property; finally, the conclusion of innocence was obtained in the case of this case.
The fifth part is the content of thinking caused by this case. This part is divided into two parts. One is to expand the connotation of the theory of ownership, and replace the narrow sense with the broad sense of ownership, including the creditor's rights and other property rights, and the ownership in the civil law category. The second is to claim that in the practice of the law, the crime of property crimes, the judicature Personnel should not identify social harmfulness by behavior, but should pay more attention to the consequences and adhere to the principle of giving priority to legal interests.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D924.35

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 姜金良;;財(cái)產(chǎn)性利益可成為侵犯財(cái)產(chǎn)罪的犯罪對(duì)象——以盜竊欠條為例[J];濱州職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年01期

2 楊金彪;;掩飾隱瞞犯罪所得及產(chǎn)生收益罪的罪質(zhì)[J];長(zhǎng)春工業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年04期

3 于世忠;拒不退還或拒不交出的含義探微[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2000年03期

4 周少華;侵占埋藏物犯罪的若干問題探析[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1998年03期

5 袁林;;刑法解釋觀應(yīng)從規(guī)則主義適度轉(zhuǎn)向人本主義[J];法商研究;2008年06期

6 肖中華;閔凱;;侵占罪中“代為保管的他人財(cái)物”之含義[J];法學(xué)家;2006年05期

7 周旋;;《刑法》第91、92條“財(cái)產(chǎn)”條款應(yīng)予廢止[J];法學(xué);2012年03期

8 張明楷;論詐騙罪的欺騙行為[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年03期

9 董玉庭;;論刑法中財(cái)物概念之解釋——以詐騙罪為視角[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2012年06期

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

，

本文編號(hào)：1878303