論盜竊罪中的扒竊行為
發(fā)布時間：2018-08-31 09:20
【摘要】：隨著《中華人民共和國刑法》的幾次修改及相關(guān)司法解釋的出臺，作為侵犯財產(chǎn)型犯罪的重點，盜竊罪的定罪量刑標準在不斷變化，并細分出了多種類型。扒竊行為在2011年《刑法修正案(八)》中被正式列入刑法懲罰的范圍，作為盜竊罪的新類型之一予以打擊；2013年兩高關(guān)于盜竊罪的司法解釋，也進一步明確扒竊行為的概念：在公共場所或者公共交通工具上盜竊他人隨身攜帶財物的,應(yīng)當(dāng)認定為扒竊。對扒竊行為的定罪標準，理論上少有研究，各地司法實踐認定也千差萬別。在新的司法解釋出臺后梳理扒竊行為入罪的歷史沿革，并對其重新解讀與研究實有必要。 扒竊行為應(yīng)具有場所的特點性——公共場所、對象的特定性——他人隨身攜帶的財物、主觀的非法占有性，其社會危害性、行為人的主觀惡性、犯罪成本較低及刑事立法基本價值傾向的變化等方面決定了扒竊入刑的正當(dāng)性。我國對扒竊的打擊力度也屬于不斷增大的過程，從最開始的行政處罰或勞教，，只有情節(jié)嚴重的才進行刑事處罰，到現(xiàn)在的扒竊直接入刑；從結(jié)合次數(shù)和數(shù)額作為定罪標準，到只考慮次數(shù)標準階段到現(xiàn)在的純粹行為標準。實踐中應(yīng)準確理解和區(qū)分扒竊與其他盜竊罪類型之間的關(guān)系：扒竊數(shù)額未達到較大數(shù)額標準時，如果情節(jié)嚴重，應(yīng)當(dāng)以扒竊行為認定盜竊罪，扒竊數(shù)額達到較大標準時，成立盜竊罪既可以扒竊行為入罪，也可以數(shù)額較大入罪；多次盜竊中的盜竊主要是指未達到數(shù)額較大標準的盜竊行為，包括不能單獨入罪的扒竊行為；攜帶兇器盜竊中的盜竊不包括扒竊行為；扒竊與入戶盜竊是兩個完全相互獨立的盜竊罪類型�，F(xiàn)行關(guān)于扒竊的立法中存在著諸多不足和缺陷，如《刑法修正案（八）》將扒竊行為一律納入刑法規(guī)制范圍，不利于貫徹刑法的人道主義思想，還造成了規(guī)范之間的沖突、司法資源浪費等，建議可對扒竊行為的概念進行進一步界定，對公共場所、隨身攜帶的財物做出合理認定，并明確扒竊入刑的前提條件，控制扒竊入刑的打擊范圍，合理定罪量刑。
[Abstract]:With the revision of the Criminal Law of the people's Republic of China and the introduction of the related judicial interpretation, as the focus of the crime of infringing on property, the standard of conviction and sentencing for the crime of larceny is constantly changing and has been subdivided into many types. Pickpocketing was formally included in the Criminal Law Amendment (VIII) in 2011 as one of the new types of larceny. Further clarify the concept of pickpocketing: theft of other people's belongings in public places or public transport should be regarded as pickpocketing. There is little research on the standard of conviction of pickpocketing, and the judicial practice is very different. After the introduction of the new judicial explanation, it is necessary to carve out the history of the crime of pickpocketing, and reinterpret and study it. Pickpocketing should have the characteristics of public places, specific objects, property carried by others, subjective illegal possession, social harmfulness, subjective malignancy of the doer, The low cost of crime and the change of basic value tendency of criminal legislation determine the legitimacy of pickpocketing. The crackdown on pickpocketing in our country also belongs to an increasing process. From the initial administrative punishment or re-education through labour, only those with serious circumstances are given criminal punishment, and now pickpocketing is directly punished; from the combination of times and amounts as the standard of conviction, To consider only the frequency of the standard stage to the present pure standard of conduct. In practice, the relationship between pickpocketing and other types of larceny should be accurately understood and distinguished: when the amount of pickpocketing is not up to the standard of larger amount, if the circumstances are serious, the crime of theft should be determined by the act of pickpocketing, and when the amount of pickpocketing reaches a larger standard, The establishment of larceny can not only incriminate the act of pickpocketing, but also incriminate a large amount of money. The theft of multiple times mainly refers to the act of theft which does not meet the standard of large amount, including the act of pickpocketing which cannot be criminalized alone. Theft with murder weapon does not include pickpocketing; pickpocketing and burglary are two totally independent types of theft. There are many deficiencies and defects in the current legislation on pickpocketing. For example, the Criminal Law Amendment (8) brings pickpocketing into the scope of criminal law, which is not conducive to carrying out the humanitarian thought of criminal law, and it also causes conflicts between norms. It is suggested that the concept of pickpocketing can be further defined, the public places and the property carried with them should be reasonably identified, the preconditions of pickpocketing and criminal punishment should be clearly defined, and the scope of the attack on pickpocketing should be controlled. A reasonable conviction and sentence.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924.3
本文編號：2214565
[Abstract]:With the revision of the Criminal Law of the people's Republic of China and the introduction of the related judicial interpretation, as the focus of the crime of infringing on property, the standard of conviction and sentencing for the crime of larceny is constantly changing and has been subdivided into many types. Pickpocketing was formally included in the Criminal Law Amendment (VIII) in 2011 as one of the new types of larceny. Further clarify the concept of pickpocketing: theft of other people's belongings in public places or public transport should be regarded as pickpocketing. There is little research on the standard of conviction of pickpocketing, and the judicial practice is very different. After the introduction of the new judicial explanation, it is necessary to carve out the history of the crime of pickpocketing, and reinterpret and study it. Pickpocketing should have the characteristics of public places, specific objects, property carried by others, subjective illegal possession, social harmfulness, subjective malignancy of the doer, The low cost of crime and the change of basic value tendency of criminal legislation determine the legitimacy of pickpocketing. The crackdown on pickpocketing in our country also belongs to an increasing process. From the initial administrative punishment or re-education through labour, only those with serious circumstances are given criminal punishment, and now pickpocketing is directly punished; from the combination of times and amounts as the standard of conviction, To consider only the frequency of the standard stage to the present pure standard of conduct. In practice, the relationship between pickpocketing and other types of larceny should be accurately understood and distinguished: when the amount of pickpocketing is not up to the standard of larger amount, if the circumstances are serious, the crime of theft should be determined by the act of pickpocketing, and when the amount of pickpocketing reaches a larger standard, The establishment of larceny can not only incriminate the act of pickpocketing, but also incriminate a large amount of money. The theft of multiple times mainly refers to the act of theft which does not meet the standard of large amount, including the act of pickpocketing which cannot be criminalized alone. Theft with murder weapon does not include pickpocketing; pickpocketing and burglary are two totally independent types of theft. There are many deficiencies and defects in the current legislation on pickpocketing. For example, the Criminal Law Amendment (8) brings pickpocketing into the scope of criminal law, which is not conducive to carrying out the humanitarian thought of criminal law, and it also causes conflicts between norms. It is suggested that the concept of pickpocketing can be further defined, the public places and the property carried with them should be reasonably identified, the preconditions of pickpocketing and criminal punishment should be clearly defined, and the scope of the attack on pickpocketing should be controlled. A reasonable conviction and sentence.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924.3
【參考文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 陳家林;;論刑法中的扒竊——對《刑法修正案(八)》的分析與解讀[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報);2011年04期
2 莊華忠;;盜竊罪新增行為方式的理解與適用[J];法制與社會;2012年06期
3 孫璐;;關(guān)于《刑法修正案(八)》中扒竊入罪的幾點思考[J];法制與社會;2012年09期
4 史運偉;;《刑法修正案(八)》視域下“新型”盜竊罪的司法實踐適用[J];法制與社會;2012年19期
5 孫桂京;;“扒竊”行為司法實踐認定的探討[J];法制與社會;2012年24期
6 李照君;魯石林;侯瑞盈;;論扒竊行為入罪的標準——從王某某扒竊案談起[J];法制與社會;2013年32期
7 孫萬懷;王麗超;;“扒竊”入罪后的司法審慎[J];法學(xué)雜志;2013年11期
8 李翔;;新型盜竊罪的司法適用路徑[J];華東政法大學(xué)學(xué)報;2011年05期
9 高國華;;盜竊罪新解[J];江蘇大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2012年04期
10 王麗超;;如何理解盜竊罪中的“扒竊”[J];中國檢察官;2013年12期
本文編號：2214565
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/xingfalunwen/2214565.html
