【摘要】：隨著市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)的快速發(fā)展，合同的重要性顯現(xiàn)得越發(fā)的突出。市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)社會(huì)的實(shí)質(zhì)就是契約關(guān)系社會(huì)。經(jīng)濟(jì)社會(huì)中的市場(chǎng)主體通過合同建立、變更、終止相互之間的關(guān)系。在我國(guó)刑法立法之初，并沒有把合同詐騙犯罪獨(dú)立的規(guī)定為犯罪，而是將其歸屬于詐騙罪之中。這與當(dāng)時(shí)的社會(huì)背景有著莫大的關(guān)系，因?yàn)楫?dāng)時(shí)我國(guó)實(shí)行的是計(jì)劃經(jīng)濟(jì)，合同的適用也就沒有像在市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)中適用得那么的高頻率、擴(kuò)大化、多元化等。隨著我國(guó)邁入市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)，改革開放的大浪潮，合同的地位也越發(fā)的凸顯。1997年修訂后的刑法第一次把合同詐騙罪規(guī)定為獨(dú)立的罪名。所謂的合同詐騙罪，就是以非法占有為目的，在合同簽訂或履行的過程中，編造虛假信息或者隱瞞真實(shí)情況，騙取對(duì)方財(cái)物的行為。隨著社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)的不斷發(fā)展，，合同逐漸的變得多元化。許多不法分子抓住合同的漏洞，利用合同進(jìn)行詐騙，騙取公私財(cái)物，擾亂市場(chǎng)的健康運(yùn)行。由于合同自身的一些特點(diǎn)，使其與財(cái)產(chǎn)型犯罪，金融犯罪具有某些相似性。在司法實(shí)踐中難以區(qū)分，給該罪的認(rèn)定帶來了困難。本文通過一個(gè)真實(shí)案例為對(duì)象，運(yùn)用相關(guān)的法律規(guī)范和理論，對(duì)合同詐騙罪的司法認(rèn)定進(jìn)行分析。希望對(duì)合同詐騙罪的認(rèn)定與防范有些裨益。 本文約一萬(wàn)七千余字，分為四大部分： 第一部分是案件情況的基本介紹，然后根據(jù)案件的情況闡述不同的分歧意見，在分歧意見的基礎(chǔ)上對(duì)爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)進(jìn)行歸納總結(jié)。爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)主要包括對(duì)吳某詐騙行為的定性以及罪數(shù)的確定。 第二部分是法理分析,筆者首先對(duì)合同詐騙罪進(jìn)行了一個(gè)理論上的界定，然后從主客觀相關(guān)構(gòu)成要件對(duì)合同詐騙罪與民事欺詐、職務(wù)侵占罪、侵占罪、票據(jù)詐騙罪進(jìn)行了分析和甄別。其次，對(duì)合同詐騙罪與票據(jù)詐騙罪的競(jìng)合和牽連進(jìn)行了闡述，總結(jié)出兩罪之間構(gòu)成競(jìng)合與牽連的前提和條件。 第三部分是本案的研究結(jié)論，結(jié)合第二部分的法理分析，對(duì)本案中吳某的詐騙行為以及其利用假支票履行合同的行為進(jìn)行定性。根據(jù)合同詐騙罪的相關(guān)理論分析，吳某的行為構(gòu)成合同詐騙罪。另外，結(jié)合法條競(jìng)合與牽連犯的理論，吳某的行為構(gòu)成一罪。 第四部分是本案的研究啟示，對(duì)整個(gè)論文的一個(gè)擴(kuò)展和升華，從中得出啟示，提出建議。筆者根據(jù)本案的諸多案件情況提出了合同詐騙罪分別在合同簽訂階段和履行階段的防范措施。
[Abstract]:With the rapid development of market economy, the importance of contract is becoming more and more prominent. The essence of market economy society is contract relation society. Economic and social market subjects through the establishment of contracts, change, and end the relationship between each other. At the beginning of our country's criminal law legislation, the crime of contract fraud was not defined as a crime, but classified as a crime of fraud. This has a great relationship with the social background at that time, because at that time our country implemented the planned economy, and the application of the contract was not as high frequency, expansion, diversification and so on as it was applicable in the market economy. Along with our country steps into the market economy, the big tide of reform and opening up, the status of contract is more and more prominent. After 1997, the revised criminal law stipulates the crime of contract fraud as an independent crime for the first time. The so-called crime of contract fraud is the act of fabricating false information or concealing the truth of the other party's property in the process of signing or performing the contract with the purpose of illegal possession. With the development of social economy, the contract becomes diversified gradually. Many lawbreakers seize the loopholes of the contract, use the contract to defraud public and private property, and disrupt the healthy operation of the market. Because of some characteristics of contract itself, it is similar to property crime and financial crime. In judicial practice, it is difficult to distinguish the crime. Through a real case, this paper analyzes the judicial cognizance of the crime of contract fraud by using relevant legal norms and theories. It is hoped that the determination and prevention of the crime of contract fraud will be of some benefit. This paper is about 17000 words, which is divided into four parts: the first part is the basic introduction of the case, then according to the situation of the case to elaborate different opinions, on the basis of different opinions to summarize the focus of the dispute. The focus of the dispute mainly includes the characterization of Wu's fraud and the determination of the number of crimes. The second part is the legal theory analysis, the author first carries on a theoretical definition to the contract fraud crime, then from the subjective and objective related constituent elements to the contract fraud crime and the civil fraud, the duty embezzlement crime. The crime of bill fraud is analyzed and identified. Secondly, it expounds the concurrence and implication of the crime of contract fraud and the crime of bill fraud, and sums up the premise and condition of the constitution of the competition and implication between the two crimes. The third part is the conclusion of the case, combined with the second part of the legal analysis of the case, Wu's fraud and its use of fake cheques to perform the contract qualitative. According to the relevant theoretical analysis of the crime of contract fraud, Wu's behavior constitutes the crime of contract fraud. In addition, combined with the theory of competing articles and implicated offense, Wu's behavior constitutes a crime. The fourth part is the inspiration of the case, an expansion and sublimation of the whole paper, from which to draw inspiration and put forward suggestions. According to many cases in this case, the author puts forward the preventive measures of the crime of contract fraud in the stage of contract signing and the stage of performance respectively.
【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)】：D924.3;D920.5

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張健;;侵占罪若干問題研究[J];重慶文理學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年06期

2 王愛鮮;;論法條競(jìng)合的本質(zhì)與理論定位[J];東岳論叢;2012年05期

3 梅傳強(qiáng);胡江;;合同詐騙罪與詐騙罪界限的司法認(rèn)定[J];法治研究;2011年11期

4 鄒瑛;;合同詐騙罪既遂問題研究[J];廣西大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2011年S1期

5 許鯉燕;;淺議法條競(jìng)合中的特別關(guān)系——以普通詐騙與金融詐騙的關(guān)系處理為例證[J];福建法學(xué);2012年01期

6 張飛飛;;我國(guó)法條競(jìng)合的種類及適用原則[J];和田師范專科學(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2011年01期

7 胡東平;合同詐騙罪認(rèn)定的困惑——兼談商法之獨(dú)立[J];安徽警官職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年03期

8 王坤;;談合同詐騙罪的犯罪構(gòu)成[J];遼寧警專學(xué)報(bào);2009年06期

9 單曉華;;金融詐騙罪中的法規(guī)競(jìng)合問題探討[J];遼寧大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年04期

10 黨穎;;論我國(guó)合同詐騙罪的成因及防范對(duì)策[J];南陽(yáng)師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2012年11期

本文編號(hào)：2332428