扒竊型盜竊罪的法律適用研究
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-08-13 09:02
【摘要】：扒竊作為盜竊罪的特別竊取方式，在構(gòu)成要件上，扒竊與盜竊罪沒(méi)有差異，主觀要件是以非法占有為目的，客觀要件是秘密轉(zhuǎn)移占有�！肮矆�(chǎng)所”，，“公共交通工具”和“隨身攜帶”則是扒竊在構(gòu)成要件中的要素。借鑒民法中對(duì)“公共場(chǎng)所”的定義，扒竊中的“公共場(chǎng)所”不僅要在功能上符合不特定的社會(huì)公眾可以進(jìn)入的要求，而且在時(shí)間上還應(yīng)處在面向公眾開(kāi)放期間�！肮步煌üぞ摺币缶哂谐休d不特定多數(shù)人的功能，同時(shí)應(yīng)處于運(yùn)營(yíng)狀態(tài)�！半S身攜帶”與“攜帶”在語(yǔ)義上沒(méi)有差異，其強(qiáng)調(diào)的是具有控制對(duì)象的外觀行為和內(nèi)在意思。 從法益保護(hù)的角度出發(fā)，“扒竊”的行為人未經(jīng)他人允許侵入私人的身體附近，同時(shí)竊取他人財(cái)物，侵害他人的財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)益和人身權(quán)益。多數(shù)扒竊行為具有團(tuán)伙作案、專業(yè)作案的性質(zhì)，嚴(yán)重危害社會(huì)的公共秩序，扒竊入刑具有其合理性。從行為人的視角出發(fā)，作為多發(fā)、常發(fā)的犯罪，扒竊的一般預(yù)防要重視，同時(shí)，基于行為人的人身危險(xiǎn)性，特殊預(yù)防也不可廢，一般預(yù)防與特殊預(yù)防要密切聯(lián)系和統(tǒng)一，但在具體情況下要有所側(cè)重。就目前的司法實(shí)踐來(lái)說(shuō)，“扒竊入刑”最大的問(wèn)題是犯罪圈的擴(kuò)大，導(dǎo)致有限的司法資源的緊缺。通過(guò)司法解釋，對(duì)扒竊的起刑點(diǎn)數(shù)額做出要求，有違扒竊入刑的目的，架空法律文本；通過(guò)文理解釋為攜帶兇器扒竊，有違文法邏輯和用語(yǔ)習(xí)慣；直接通過(guò)“但書”出罪，則有損犯罪構(gòu)成體系的邏輯性；考量行為人的人身危險(xiǎn)性，則是只是量刑環(huán)節(jié)的技術(shù)操作。就目前的犯罪構(gòu)成體系而言，本文建議在“但書”精神的指引下，細(xì)化司法解釋，合理明確的扒竊的構(gòu)成要件要素的內(nèi)涵，在對(duì)是否構(gòu)成犯罪有了明確判斷的前提下，在量刑環(huán)節(jié)充分考量行為人的人身危險(xiǎn)性。 在扒竊與其他類型盜竊行為的認(rèn)定順序上，特殊類型的盜竊罪入罪門檻應(yīng)低于普通類型，而在特殊類型的盜竊罪內(nèi)部應(yīng)該是先看是否為“入戶”、“攜帶兇器”或者“扒竊”，再看是否“多次”。也就說(shuō)，盜竊罪中具體竊取行為的認(rèn)定順序?yàn)椋瑪y帶兇器盜竊=扒竊=入室盜竊多次盜竊盜竊數(shù)額較大。對(duì)扒竊行為，在司法實(shí)踐中，一般不認(rèn)為存在未遂，除非竊取到的東西毫無(wú)價(jià)值，但是存在犯罪中止和犯罪預(yù)備。在扒竊的量刑配置上，應(yīng)重視行為人的主觀惡性和人身危險(xiǎn)性，對(duì)未成年人、老人和共同犯罪的犯罪分子區(qū)別對(duì)待。
[Abstract]:Pickpocketing is a special way of theft. There is no difference between pickpocketing and larceny. The subjective element is illegal possession and the objective element is secret transfer possession. "Public place", "public transport" and "carrying with you" are the elements of pickpocketing. Referring to the definition of "public place" in civil law, the "public place" in pickpocketing should not only meet the requirements of non-specific social public access, but also be open to the public in time. Public transport means should have the function of carrying an unspecified number of people and should be in operation at the same time. There is no semantic difference between carry-on and carry-on, which emphasizes the appearance behavior and intrinsic meaning of the controlled object. From the angle of legal interest protection, the perpetrator of "pickpocketing" invades the private body without permission from others, and steals other people's property and personal rights and interests at the same time. Most pickpocketing acts have the nature of gang crime and professional crime, which seriously endanger the public order of society, so pickpocketing has its rationality. From the perspective of the doer, as a frequent crime, the general prevention of pickpocketing should be paid attention to. At the same time, based on the personal danger of the perpetrator, the special prevention should not be abolished, the general prevention and the special prevention should be closely linked and unified. However, in the specific circumstances to focus on. As far as the current judicial practice is concerned, the biggest problem of pickpocketing is the expansion of criminal circle, which leads to the shortage of limited judicial resources. Through the judicial interpretation, the amount of the penalty point of pickpocketing is required, which is contrary to the purpose of pickpocketing in the criminal law, and the text of the law is set up; it is illegal to use grammatical logic and lexical habits to interpret pickpocketing as carrying the murder weapon through literary and theoretical interpretation; the crime is committed directly through the proviso. It damages the logic of the criminal constitution system, and considers the personal dangerousness of the perpetrator, it is only the technical operation of the sentencing link. As far as the present constitution system of crime is concerned, this paper suggests that under the guidance of the spirit of "proviso", we should refine the judicial interpretation, reasonably define the connotation of the elements of the constituent elements of pickpocketing, and have a clear judgment on whether the crime constitutes a crime or not. The personal danger of the perpetrator should be fully considered in the sentencing link. In the order of identification of pickpocketing and other types of theft, the threshold of the special type of larceny should be lower than that of the ordinary type, and in the interior of the special type of theft, it should be first to see if it is "entering the house", "carrying the murder weapon" or "pickpocketing". And see if it's "many times". That is to say, the order of the specific theft in the crime of larceny is that the theft with the murder weapon = pickpocketing = the amount of multiple theft in the burglary is larger. In judicial practice, there is no attempt unless something stolen is of no value, but there are criminal suspensions and criminal preparations. In the sentencing allocation of pickpocketing, we should pay attention to the subjective malignancy and personal danger of the perpetrator, and treat the minors, the elderly and the criminals of the joint crime differently.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3
本文編號(hào)：2180510
[Abstract]:Pickpocketing is a special way of theft. There is no difference between pickpocketing and larceny. The subjective element is illegal possession and the objective element is secret transfer possession. "Public place", "public transport" and "carrying with you" are the elements of pickpocketing. Referring to the definition of "public place" in civil law, the "public place" in pickpocketing should not only meet the requirements of non-specific social public access, but also be open to the public in time. Public transport means should have the function of carrying an unspecified number of people and should be in operation at the same time. There is no semantic difference between carry-on and carry-on, which emphasizes the appearance behavior and intrinsic meaning of the controlled object. From the angle of legal interest protection, the perpetrator of "pickpocketing" invades the private body without permission from others, and steals other people's property and personal rights and interests at the same time. Most pickpocketing acts have the nature of gang crime and professional crime, which seriously endanger the public order of society, so pickpocketing has its rationality. From the perspective of the doer, as a frequent crime, the general prevention of pickpocketing should be paid attention to. At the same time, based on the personal danger of the perpetrator, the special prevention should not be abolished, the general prevention and the special prevention should be closely linked and unified. However, in the specific circumstances to focus on. As far as the current judicial practice is concerned, the biggest problem of pickpocketing is the expansion of criminal circle, which leads to the shortage of limited judicial resources. Through the judicial interpretation, the amount of the penalty point of pickpocketing is required, which is contrary to the purpose of pickpocketing in the criminal law, and the text of the law is set up; it is illegal to use grammatical logic and lexical habits to interpret pickpocketing as carrying the murder weapon through literary and theoretical interpretation; the crime is committed directly through the proviso. It damages the logic of the criminal constitution system, and considers the personal dangerousness of the perpetrator, it is only the technical operation of the sentencing link. As far as the present constitution system of crime is concerned, this paper suggests that under the guidance of the spirit of "proviso", we should refine the judicial interpretation, reasonably define the connotation of the elements of the constituent elements of pickpocketing, and have a clear judgment on whether the crime constitutes a crime or not. The personal danger of the perpetrator should be fully considered in the sentencing link. In the order of identification of pickpocketing and other types of theft, the threshold of the special type of larceny should be lower than that of the ordinary type, and in the interior of the special type of theft, it should be first to see if it is "entering the house", "carrying the murder weapon" or "pickpocketing". And see if it's "many times". That is to say, the order of the specific theft in the crime of larceny is that the theft with the murder weapon = pickpocketing = the amount of multiple theft in the burglary is larger. In judicial practice, there is no attempt unless something stolen is of no value, but there are criminal suspensions and criminal preparations. In the sentencing allocation of pickpocketing, we should pay attention to the subjective malignancy and personal danger of the perpetrator, and treat the minors, the elderly and the criminals of the joint crime differently.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3
【相似文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 姜濤;;基于法益保護(hù)位階的刑法實(shí)質(zhì)解釋[J];學(xué)術(shù)界;2013年09期
2 黃栓成;;非婚受孕胎兒的法益保護(hù)[J];內(nèi)蒙古電大學(xué)刊;2011年03期
3 姚貝;王拓;;法益保護(hù)前置化問(wèn)題研究[J];中國(guó)刑事法雜志;2012年01期
4 呂英杰;;風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法下的法益保護(hù)[J];吉林大學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2013年04期
5 趙星;;法益保護(hù)和權(quán)利保障視域中的環(huán)境犯罪立法與解釋[J];政法論壇;2011年06期
6 官玉琴;;離婚婦女身份法益保護(hù)問(wèn)題研究——基于男女平等法律制度的考量[J];中華女子學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2012年05期
7 蘇永生;;論我國(guó)刑法中的法益保護(hù)原則——1997年《中華人民共和國(guó)刑法》第3條新解[J];法商研究;2014年01期
8 米恒;;我國(guó)刑法機(jī)能的價(jià)值定位[J];黑龍江省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年04期
9 馬聰;;刑法機(jī)能模式及當(dāng)代中國(guó)之選擇[J];刑法論叢;2009年02期
10 陳鑫;;侵權(quán)法的法益保護(hù)[J];華東政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2010年03期
相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前4條
1 本報(bào)記者 樂(lè)欣;以法益保護(hù)為核心建立刑法學(xué)體系[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2003年
2 華僑大學(xué)法學(xué)院 賴隹文;“私了”后被害人改變陳述是否包庇[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2011年
3 北京大學(xué)法學(xué)院教授 陳興良;刑法機(jī)能規(guī)范思考[N];人民法院報(bào);2007年
4 西北政法大學(xué)校長(zhǎng) 賈宇;風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法理論的啟示[N];光明日?qǐng)?bào);2009年
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條
1 劉燕;扒竊型盜竊罪的法律適用研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2014年
本文編號(hào)：2180510
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/xingfalunwen/2180510.html
教材專著
