刑法介入非公企業(yè)財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)的邏輯反思
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-07-25 13:43
【摘要】：刑法保護(hù)非公企業(yè)財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)要恪守平等原則,堅(jiān)持"最后保護(hù)手段"的防線。非公企業(yè)財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)刑法保護(hù)的失當(dāng),既有"重國有""輕私有"的歷史因素,又有司法"過罪化"的現(xiàn)實(shí)因素。從刑事政策來看,立法者有意識(shí)地界分公有財(cái)產(chǎn)與非公有財(cái)產(chǎn),導(dǎo)致公私領(lǐng)域同類行為不同定性、同類犯罪不同刑罰的不平等現(xiàn)象。從具體司法實(shí)踐來看,司法機(jī)關(guān)過早介入非公企業(yè)財(cái)產(chǎn)糾紛以及處理程序失當(dāng),導(dǎo)致某些不宜入罪的行為亂入罪。要想疏解非公企業(yè)財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)刑法保護(hù)的困頓,關(guān)鍵要實(shí)現(xiàn)非公企業(yè)財(cái)產(chǎn)犯罪與國有單位財(cái)產(chǎn)犯罪在罪名、法定刑結(jié)構(gòu)以及法定刑幅度上的對(duì)應(yīng),同時(shí)在能動(dòng)司法中引入克制因素,防止刑事司法權(quán)的過早介入與不當(dāng)運(yùn)用。
[Abstract]:In order to protect the property rights of non-public enterprises, the criminal law should abide by the principle of equality and adhere to the defense line of "last protection means". The improper protection of property rights in non-public enterprises includes the historical factors of "attaching importance to state ownership" and "neglecting private ownership", as well as the realistic factors of judicial "over-criminalization". From the point of view of criminal policy, the legislator consciously divides the land boundary into public property and non-public property, which leads to the inequality of the same kind of behavior in the public and private fields and the different penalties of the same kind of crime. From the concrete judicial practice, the judicial organs get involved in the property disputes of non-public enterprises prematurely and deal with the improper procedures, which leads to some unincriminating behaviors. In order to alleviate the difficulty of the criminal law protection of non-public enterprises' property rights, the key is to realize the correspondence between non-public enterprise property crimes and state-owned unit property crimes in charge, legal punishment structure and legal penalty range, and at the same time, to introduce restraint factors into the active administration of justice. To prevent the premature intervention and improper application of criminal judicial power.
【作者單位】： 東南大學(xué)反腐敗法治研究中心;
【基金】：教育部人文社科規(guī)劃項(xiàng)目“刑法出罪機(jī)制問題研究”(項(xiàng)目編號(hào):2015YJA820015)的階段性研究成果 江蘇高校哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)重點(diǎn)研究基地基金資助
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3
本文編號(hào)：2143998
[Abstract]:In order to protect the property rights of non-public enterprises, the criminal law should abide by the principle of equality and adhere to the defense line of "last protection means". The improper protection of property rights in non-public enterprises includes the historical factors of "attaching importance to state ownership" and "neglecting private ownership", as well as the realistic factors of judicial "over-criminalization". From the point of view of criminal policy, the legislator consciously divides the land boundary into public property and non-public property, which leads to the inequality of the same kind of behavior in the public and private fields and the different penalties of the same kind of crime. From the concrete judicial practice, the judicial organs get involved in the property disputes of non-public enterprises prematurely and deal with the improper procedures, which leads to some unincriminating behaviors. In order to alleviate the difficulty of the criminal law protection of non-public enterprises' property rights, the key is to realize the correspondence between non-public enterprise property crimes and state-owned unit property crimes in charge, legal punishment structure and legal penalty range, and at the same time, to introduce restraint factors into the active administration of justice. To prevent the premature intervention and improper application of criminal judicial power.
【作者單位】： 東南大學(xué)反腐敗法治研究中心;
【基金】：教育部人文社科規(guī)劃項(xiàng)目“刑法出罪機(jī)制問題研究”(項(xiàng)目編號(hào):2015YJA820015)的階段性研究成果 江蘇高校哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)重點(diǎn)研究基地基金資助
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3
【相似文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條
1 白鷗，，閻宏斌;私吞公有財(cái)產(chǎn)應(yīng)如何定性[J];人民檢察;1996年04期
本文編號(hào)：2143998
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/xingfalunwen/2143998.html
教材專著
