【摘要】：扒竊型盜竊作為盜竊罪一種特殊的罪狀被規(guī)定在《刑法修正案(八)》之中,盜竊罪的定罪模式隨之發(fā)生了變化。這種新型盜竊的出現(xiàn)對(duì)理論界和司法實(shí)務(wù)都提出了新的課題,對(duì)盜竊罪的刑事司法產(chǎn)生了深遠(yuǎn)的影響,同時(shí)也為打擊扒竊犯罪提供了刑法依據(jù),彰顯了對(duì)打擊扒竊犯罪的決心。但是,對(duì)于扒竊入刑之后,扒竊的概念以及扒竊構(gòu)成要件并沒(méi)有一個(gè)明確的界定。司法實(shí)踐中,由于對(duì)扒竊的不同理解,所占的立場(chǎng)、角度不同等原因,從而造成了不同的審判結(jié)果�？梢园l(fā)現(xiàn),對(duì)于扒竊還沒(méi)有達(dá)到一個(gè)統(tǒng)一的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),從而造成了司法上和理論上的困境。本文主要是扒竊型盜竊司法認(rèn)定的實(shí)證研究。首先,筆者整理出近五年扒竊案件的數(shù)量以及所占的比重,通過(guò)數(shù)據(jù)的整理,發(fā)映出扒竊案件的現(xiàn)狀,并就理論界與司法實(shí)務(wù)中出現(xiàn)的關(guān)于扒竊型盜竊行為類(lèi)型的認(rèn)定、既遂未遂的問(wèn)題、數(shù)額的認(rèn)定等爭(zhēng)議提出問(wèn)題。其次,是本文采用的分析方法,即實(shí)證研究,并就研究目的、實(shí)證研究的可行性與必要性進(jìn)行闡述,確立樣本標(biāo)準(zhǔn),即北京市175例司法案件,并對(duì)論文的分析框架進(jìn)行一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)要的概括。再次,扒竊型盜竊定罪情節(jié)的司法認(rèn)定。將“隨身攜帶”的認(rèn)定、“公共場(chǎng)所”的認(rèn)定規(guī)律予以闡述,以此發(fā)現(xiàn)在司法實(shí)踐中大致采取的觀點(diǎn),并就扒竊型盜竊與其他類(lèi)型盜竊之間的關(guān)系進(jìn)行梳理,并對(duì)定罪情節(jié)的認(rèn)定規(guī)律在罪刑法定原則下予以評(píng)析,并提出自己的看法與建議。最后,扒竊型盜竊量刑情節(jié)的司法認(rèn)定。將扒竊案件中涉及到的相關(guān)量刑情節(jié)予以統(tǒng)計(jì)并匯總,再就量刑情節(jié)與量刑間的關(guān)系進(jìn)行比對(duì),發(fā)現(xiàn)扒竊型盜竊在司法適用中量刑情節(jié)對(duì)量刑的影響,并對(duì)量刑情節(jié)認(rèn)定規(guī)律在罪責(zé)相適應(yīng)原則下予以評(píng)析,并提出自己的看法與建議。本文主要以司法認(rèn)定為主線,通過(guò)對(duì)相關(guān)問(wèn)題的梳理,以期能夠解決司法認(rèn)定上爭(zhēng)議的問(wèn)題。對(duì)于扒竊入刑后產(chǎn)生的諸多問(wèn)題,再去爭(zhēng)論其入罪是否合理已無(wú)意義,對(duì)扒竊行為如何限定,對(duì)扒竊行為如何理解,給予扒竊行為一個(gè)明晰的概念,才是應(yīng)當(dāng)關(guān)注的首要問(wèn)題,這樣也能為司法實(shí)務(wù)提供準(zhǔn)確的、可行性的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。當(dāng)扒竊概念明晰,扒竊的構(gòu)成要件確定,對(duì)于扒竊的犯罪形態(tài)等問(wèn)題自然也就水到渠成。通過(guò)上述的簡(jiǎn)要概括,志在為扒竊在司法適用中提供參考,使扒竊的認(rèn)定更為準(zhǔn)確。
[Abstract]:As a special crime of larceny, pickpocketing theft is stipulated in the Criminal Law Amendment (8), and the conviction mode of theft has changed. The emergence of this new type of theft has put forward a new subject to the theoretical circle and judicial practice, which has a profound influence on the criminal justice of theft, and also provides the criminal law basis for cracking down on the crime of pickpocketing and demonstrates the determination to crack down on the crime of pickpocketing. However, there is no clear definition of the concept of pickpocketing and its constituent elements. In judicial practice, due to the different understanding of pickpocketing, the position of different reasons, resulting in different trial results. It can be found that pickpocketing has not yet reached a unified standard, resulting in judicial and theoretical difficulties. This paper is mainly an empirical study on judicial cognizance of pickpocketing theft. First of all, the author sorted out the number and proportion of pickpocketing cases in the past five years. Through the data collation, the author mapped out the current situation of pickpocketing cases, and identified the types of pickpocket theft behavior that appeared in the theoretical circle and judicial practice. The issue of attempted accomplishment and the determination of the amount raised questions. Secondly, it is the analysis method used in this paper, that is, the empirical study. The purpose, feasibility and necessity of the empirical research are expounded, and the sample standard is established, that is, 175 cases of judicial cases in Beijing. And a brief summary of the analysis framework of the paper. Again, pickpocket theft conviction circumstances of the judicial determination. The identification of "carry-on" and the identification law of "public place" are expounded, and the views adopted in judicial practice are found, and the relationship between pickpocketing theft and other types of theft is combed out. The law of conviction is evaluated under the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a crime, and its own views and suggestions are put forward. Finally, the judicial determination of the circumstances of pickpocketing theft sentencing. The relevant sentencing circumstances involved in pickpocketing cases are counted and summarized, and then the relationship between sentencing circumstances and sentencing is compared, and the influence of sentencing circumstances on sentencing is found in the judicial application of pickpocketing theft. And the law of determining the circumstances of sentencing is evaluated under the principle of the adaptation of crime and responsibility, and its own views and suggestions are put forward. In this paper, judicial confirmation as the main line, through the comb of related issues, in order to resolve the dispute on judicial identification. As to the many problems that arise after pickpocketing has been punished, it is no longer meaningful to argue whether it is reasonable to incriminate, how to limit pickpocketing, how to understand pickpocketing, and how to give a clear concept to pickpocketing, which is the most important issue that should be paid attention to. This can also provide an accurate and feasible standard for judicial practice. When the concept of pickpocketing is clear and the constituent elements of pickpocketing are determined, the criminal form of pickpocketing will come naturally. Through the above brief summary, it aims to provide reference for pickpocketing in the judicial application, so as to make the identification of pickpocketing more accurate.
【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】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D924.35

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 陳攻;;瀆職罪——非物質(zhì)性損失司法認(rèn)定[J];法制博覽(中旬刊);2013年09期

2 趙豐琳,史寶倫;共犯過(guò)限的司法認(rèn)定[J];中國(guó)律師;2000年09期

3 趙建星;案發(fā)前退回賄賂行為的司法認(rèn)定[J];檢察實(shí)踐;2003年03期

4 鄧宇瓊;損害商業(yè)信譽(yù)、商品聲譽(yù)罪的司法認(rèn)定[J];吉林公安高等專(zhuān)科學(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2004年06期

5 吳訪非,賈艷婷,公民;巨額財(cái)產(chǎn)來(lái)源不明罪的司法認(rèn)定[J];沈陽(yáng)建筑大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2005年02期

6 薛曉衛(wèi);試論受賄與接受饋贈(zèng)的司法認(rèn)定[J];人民檢察;2005年16期

7 王廣軍;淺析損害商業(yè)信譽(yù)、商品聲譽(yù)罪司法認(rèn)定中的幾個(gè)問(wèn)題[J];檢察實(shí)踐;2005年04期

8 余波;周文志;;為親友非法牟利罪的司法認(rèn)定[J];中國(guó)檢察官;2006年04期

9 張軍;;非法占用農(nóng)用地罪的司法認(rèn)定[J];中國(guó)土地;2006年05期

10 張亞;劉穎;;強(qiáng)迫交易罪司法認(rèn)定中的幾個(gè)主要問(wèn)題探討[J];遼寧行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年08期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前3條

1 劉孝暉;;芻議立功的司法認(rèn)定[A];當(dāng)代法學(xué)論壇（2008年第4輯）[C];2008年

2 程林森;;論“形跡可疑”型自首的司法認(rèn)定[A];當(dāng)代法學(xué)論壇（2008年第2輯）[C];2008年

3 孔建祥;;“第三者”、“車(chē)上人員”在機(jī)動(dòng)車(chē)輛第三者責(zé)任險(xiǎn)中的角色轉(zhuǎn)換和司法認(rèn)定[A];浙江省2011年保險(xiǎn)法學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)論文集[C];2011年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 王磊;入戶盜竊之司法認(rèn)定[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2012年

2 金曉麗;拒不支付勞動(dòng)報(bào)酬罪的司法認(rèn)定[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2012年

3 伍靜妍;為奪商標(biāo)“獨(dú)占”權(quán)諸葛釀克隆“酸酸乳”司法認(rèn)定[N];第一財(cái)經(jīng)日?qǐng)?bào);2007年

4 尤忠華 池仲旺;對(duì)添加曾用名行為的司法認(rèn)定[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2012年

5 南通市檢察院 何雪琴;利用影響力受賄罪的司法認(rèn)定[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2012年

6 戴小霞;輪奸行為的司法認(rèn)定[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2013年

7 河南省漯河市郾城區(qū)人民法院 河南省漯河市中級(jí)人民法院 劉元敏 齊江濤 張永輝;假冒食品十倍賠償?shù)乃痉ㄕJ(rèn)定[N];人民法院報(bào);2013年

8 李忠正 何爽;商業(yè)拆遷中共同受賄的司法認(rèn)定[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2014年

9 上海對(duì)外貿(mào)易學(xué)院 楊宏芹 上海市高級(jí)人民法院 朱鐵軍;徇私舞弊不移交刑事案件罪司法認(rèn)定中的若干問(wèn)題[N];人民法院報(bào);2013年

10 王燕玉 周文;江南“五彩”商標(biāo)第一個(gè)戴上桂冠[N];宜興日?qǐng)?bào);2007年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 劉玉平;論交通肇事罪的司法認(rèn)定與立法完善[D];華南理工大學(xué);2015年

2 金逸帆;背信損害上市公司利益罪探析[D];上海大學(xué);2015年

3 劉婷;強(qiáng)迫交易罪司法認(rèn)定中的疑難問(wèn)題研究[D];新疆大學(xué);2015年

4 許偉斌;論搶劫罪的司法認(rèn)定[D];華南理工大學(xué);2016年

5 許騰翔;新類(lèi)型盜竊罪司法認(rèn)定若干問(wèn)題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

6 王夢(mèng)思;馳名商標(biāo)使用的法律規(guī)則[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2015年

7 唐悄若;論運(yùn)輸毒品罪共同犯罪的司法認(rèn)定[D];云南大學(xué);2015年

8 任昱佳;巨額財(cái)產(chǎn)來(lái)源不明罪司法認(rèn)定問(wèn)題研究[D];東北財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2016年

9 胥曉娟;非法吸收公眾存款罪的司法認(rèn)定[D];蘇州大學(xué);2015年

10 梁艷;強(qiáng)奸罪若干問(wèn)題探究[D];廣西師范大學(xué);2015年

，

本文編號(hào)：2292817