【摘要】：本文所指的親屬間侵犯財產(chǎn)行為，特指發(fā)生在刑法規(guī)定的親屬之間，符合刑法分則侵犯財產(chǎn)罪個罪的類型化行為構(gòu)成要件、且至少表象的具有違法性侵犯的行為。在我國的不同司法解釋中，對發(fā)生在特定親屬間的盜竊罪等四種類型財產(chǎn)犯罪的侵犯財產(chǎn)行為規(guī)定了與普通財產(chǎn)犯罪行為相比不同的處置方式。但是，就我國現(xiàn)行有關(guān)親屬間侵犯財產(chǎn)行為的立法規(guī)定以及理論研究來看，仍然具有一定的不完備之處，因此對親屬間侵犯財產(chǎn)行為的研究依然具有一定的積極意義。 本文首先參照有關(guān)理論和實踐的做法以近親屬和家庭成員概念著手對親屬關(guān)系的范圍進行了確定。我國法律體系中對親屬間侵犯財產(chǎn)行為在法律效果上并無從重處理的規(guī)定，，而在從寬處理方面則在實體和程序上均作出了較為具體的規(guī)定。在對親屬間侵犯財產(chǎn)行為出罪或從寬處理的理論根據(jù)上，本文參照大陸法系有關(guān)觀點，從解釋論、比較分析、司法實踐三個角度對我國現(xiàn)有的理論學(xué)說進行了探討，得出了以親情關(guān)系及家庭自治為核心的刑事政策作為解釋親屬間侵犯財產(chǎn)行為出罪或從寬處罰的唯一類型化實質(zhì)依據(jù)的結(jié)論。 關(guān)于親屬間侵犯財產(chǎn)行為刑罰規(guī)則的具體適用,本文認為：在親屬關(guān)系的認識必要性問題和認識錯誤問題上，應(yīng)立足于違法性和責(zé)任性判斷，判斷的關(guān)鍵在于身份關(guān)系的有無本身；實踐中若親屬關(guān)系發(fā)生了變化，應(yīng)著眼于行為或結(jié)果發(fā)生時的身份關(guān)系，以決定能否直接適用有關(guān)司法解釋；如若行為人的一個侵財行為，造成了多個刑法意義下被害人的損害，然而行為人僅與一個或部分被害人具有法定親屬關(guān)系的情況,應(yīng)該特別注意法益保護的范圍，若行為人損害了親屬之外的其他人的財產(chǎn)權(quán)利，則不能按照相關(guān)司法解釋直接作出罪或從寬處理；對親屬與非親屬的共同侵財行為，依照共犯從屬說的立場，針對非親屬共犯違法性減少的情況，應(yīng)當(dāng)在相關(guān)條文規(guī)定中明確非親屬共犯不適用親屬關(guān)系從寬處理條款。 目前，在我國對親屬間侵犯財產(chǎn)行為的法律規(guī)制中仍然存在著調(diào)整范圍不足、條文定性錯誤、規(guī)范性文件之間不協(xié)調(diào)等現(xiàn)象，本文基于理論分析和實踐中的做法，結(jié)合我國的國情、社情，在充分借鑒了古代法和域外法的優(yōu)秀經(jīng)驗并參照了他人的學(xué)術(shù)研究后，分別作出了將部分司法解釋上升為刑法條文、擴大罪名和親屬關(guān)系適用范圍以及對部分與刑法體系不協(xié)調(diào)的司法解釋規(guī)定進行適當(dāng)修改等立法建議。
[Abstract]:The behavior of infringing property among relatives referred to in this article refers to the behavior that occurs between relatives stipulated in the criminal law, which accords with the constitutive requirements of the classification of the crime of infringing property according to the special provisions of the criminal law, and at least appears to be an act of illegal sexual assault. In different judicial interpretations of our country, four types of property crimes, such as theft among specific relatives, are dealt with in different ways compared with ordinary property crimes. However, there are still some imperfections in the current legislation and theoretical research on the property infringement between relatives in China, so the research on the property infringement among relatives is still of certain positive significance. In this paper, the scope of kinship is determined with the concepts of near relatives and family members according to the theory and practice. In the legal system of our country, there is no stipulation on the legal effect of the infringement of property between relatives, but in the aspect of leniency, both the entity and the procedure are specified. On the theoretical basis of offending or leniently dealing with the crime of infringing property among relatives, this article, referring to the relevant viewpoints of the civil law system, discusses the existing theories of our country from the three angles of interpretation, comparative analysis and judicial practice. This paper draws a conclusion that the criminal policy based on kinship relationship and family autonomy is the only substantial basis for explaining the crime of infringing property among relatives or lenient punishment. With regard to the specific application of the penalty rules for the infringement of property among relatives, this paper holds that the judgment of illegality and responsibility should be based on the problems of the necessity of understanding the kinship and the problem of misunderstanding. The key to judge lies in the existence or not of the identity relationship; In practice, if the kinship has changed, we should focus on the identity relationship when the behavior or result occurs in order to decide whether the judicial interpretation can be directly applied. If the perpetrator's one act of invading property causes damage to the victim in the sense of multiple criminal laws, however, if the actor has only one or part of the victim's legal kinship, he should pay special attention to the scope of legal interest protection. If the perpetrator damages the property rights of other persons other than relatives, he can not directly make the crime or leniency according to the relevant judicial interpretation; In view of the reduction of the illegality of non-relative accomplices, it should be made clear in the relevant provisions that kinship leniency clauses should not be applied to non-relative accomplices according to the position of complicity of accomplices in the joint invasion of property between relatives and non-relatives. At present, there are still some phenomena in the legal regulation of property infringement among relatives in our country, such as insufficient adjustment scope, incorrect qualitative provisions, disharmony among normative documents, etc. This paper is based on theoretical analysis and practice. Combined with the national conditions of our country, the social situation, after drawing full reference from the excellent experience of ancient law and foreign law and referring to the academic research of others, the author has made a part of the judicial interpretation and raised the judicial interpretation to the articles of criminal law respectively. The legislative suggestions are to expand the scope of application of charges and kinship and to modify some judicial interpretation provisions which are inconsistent with the criminal law system.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：遼寧大學(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 楊子良;盜竊罪若干新型問題研究[J];法學(xué)雜志;2005年01期

2 李明國;;論“親屬相盜”的親告罪性質(zhì)[J];中國人民公安大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2006年06期

3 吳大華;試論家庭內(nèi)部人員相盜竊的定性問題[J];公安研究;1999年04期

4 樊迪;;從親親相隱到期待可能性[J];貴州教育學(xué)院學(xué)報;2008年11期

5 王瑞君;;刑事被害人諒解不應(yīng)成為酌定量刑情節(jié)[J];法學(xué);2012年07期

6 盧國陽;親屬相竊問題研究[J];華東理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2002年02期

7 朱淼;;親屬范圍研究[J];河南司法警官職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報;2007年01期

8 蔡雪冰;李冰;;親屬相盜論[J];湖南科技學(xué)院學(xué)報;2008年10期

9 范忠信;“親親尊尊”與親屬相犯:中外刑法的暗合[J];法學(xué)研究;1997年03期

10 張亞飛;;近代中國刑法中親屬相盜之罪刑變遷(1902—1949)[J];歷史教學(xué)(下半月刊);2013年03期

本文編號：2381727