本文選題：非法經(jīng)營(yíng) + 違反國(guó)家規(guī)定　； 參考：《沈陽(yáng)師范大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：在刑法中,非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪處于至關(guān)重要之地位,非法經(jīng)營(yíng)的行為屢見不鮮,并且日新月異。我國(guó)刑法第二百二十五條用空白罪狀描述了非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪,為本罪構(gòu)建了基本結(jié)構(gòu),但是本條規(guī)定也留下了第四款兜底性條款,司法解釋和司法實(shí)踐都對(duì)本罪有了不同程度的擴(kuò)張,使得本罪擴(kuò)張適用現(xiàn)象頻發(fā)。一些新型行為的入罪與出罪引發(fā)頗多爭(zhēng)議。以我國(guó)目前的相關(guān)法律和司法解釋認(rèn)定這些行為時(shí),存在著解讀適用方面的爭(zhēng)議,理論上對(duì)于這些行為的認(rèn)定也莫衷一是,這也使我國(guó)實(shí)務(wù)界對(duì)非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪的認(rèn)定難上加難。故而,對(duì)于上述行為進(jìn)行研究認(rèn)定很有必要。筆者以真實(shí)的案例為引,通過對(duì)四個(gè)不同角度案例的入罪、出罪的定性探討,為更好地認(rèn)定非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪拋磚引玉。同時(shí),筆者在論文的寫作中力求將說理與適用結(jié)合,以期得到更加具有實(shí)用意義的結(jié)論。本文以四個(gè)案例為切入點(diǎn),對(duì)一些與本罪有關(guān)的爭(zhēng)議予以討論研究:由蘇某甲非法建售農(nóng)村公墓案引出非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪法益、犯罪對(duì)象的爭(zhēng)議,將圍繞本罪法益的三種主要學(xué)說作對(duì)比分析,得出法益為市場(chǎng)準(zhǔn)入秩序的結(jié)論,由法益再對(duì)本罪的犯罪對(duì)象予以認(rèn)定,即限制買賣物品。墓穴并非限制買賣物品,建售農(nóng)村公墓行為不可以本罪來評(píng)價(jià);再以許某買賣非國(guó)家重點(diǎn)保護(hù)野生動(dòng)物案引出本罪前提要件,即“違反國(guó)家規(guī)定”的相關(guān)爭(zhēng)議,對(duì)理論與實(shí)踐中對(duì)于國(guó)家規(guī)定的不同解讀予以解析,得出自己的結(jié)論,將許某行為評(píng)價(jià)為非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪;接著用張某網(wǎng)售彈藥制造工具案引出本罪的行為要件,即“非法經(jīng)營(yíng)行為”的相關(guān)爭(zhēng)議,對(duì)“非法”與“經(jīng)營(yíng)”的認(rèn)定難點(diǎn)予以辨析,將張某行為排除在本罪之外;最后用遠(yuǎn)峽船舶公司擅自經(jīng)營(yíng)水上補(bǔ)油業(yè)務(wù)案引出本罪的程度要件,即“擾亂市場(chǎng)秩序,情節(jié)嚴(yán)重”的相關(guān)爭(zhēng)議,對(duì)程度要件的范圍加以界定,最后得出遠(yuǎn)峽船舶公司不構(gòu)成犯罪的結(jié)論。
[Abstract]:In criminal law, the crime of illegal operation is very important. Article 225 of our criminal law describes the crime of illegal business with blank crime, which constructs the basic structure for this crime, but this article also leaves the fourth clause of "bottom". Both judicial interpretation and judicial practice have expanded the crime to different degrees, which makes the crime expand frequently. The incrimination and exoneration of some new acts have caused much controversy. There are disputes on interpretation and application of these acts in the current legal and judicial interpretations of our country, and there is also a lack of agreement on the identification of these acts in theory, which makes it more difficult for the practical circles of our country to identify the crime of illegal operation. Therefore, it is necessary to study and identify the above-mentioned behaviors. The author takes the real case as the citation, through the four different angle cases' incrimination, the qualitative discussion of the crime, in order to better identify the illegal operation crime. At the same time, the author tries to combine reasoning with application in order to get more practical conclusions. This paper takes four cases as the starting point to discuss and study some disputes related to this crime: the case of illegal construction and sale of rural cemeteries by Su Mou Jia leads to the legal benefits of illegal operation and the dispute of the object of the crime. By comparing and analyzing the three main theories of the legal interest of this crime, the conclusion that the legal interest is the order of market access is drawn, and the object of the crime is identified by the legal interest, that is, the restriction of the purchase and sale of goods. The grave is not a restriction on the sale and purchase of articles, and the construction and sale of rural cemeteries cannot be evaluated by this crime; and then the case of Xu for buying and selling non-state key protected wild animals leads to the premise of this crime, that is, the related dispute about "violating the state regulations." This paper analyzes the different interpretations of the national regulations in theory and practice, draws its own conclusion, evaluates Xu's behavior as the crime of illegal operation, and then uses Zhang's case of selling ammunition manufacturing tools on the net to elicit the behavioral elements of this crime. Namely "illegal business behavior" related disputes, "illegal" and "management" of the identification of difficulties to be differentiated, the behavior of Zhang excluded from this crime; Finally, using the case of Yuanxia Shipping Company to operate the oil replenishment business on water without authorization, it leads to the degree elements of this crime, that is, the related dispute of "disturbing the market order, the circumstances are serious", and defines the scope of the degree elements. Finally, the conclusion that Yuanxia shipping company does not constitute a crime.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：沈陽(yáng)師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D924.33

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 吳大勇;周天京;;論非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪中的“國(guó)家規(guī)定”[J];中國(guó)檢察官;2016年07期

2 王恩海;;最高人民法院對(duì)非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪中“違反國(guó)家規(guī)定”的適用[J];法治研究;2015年04期

3 于志強(qiáng);郭旨龍;;“違反國(guó)家規(guī)定”的時(shí)代困境與未來方向——以非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪為切入點(diǎn)進(jìn)行規(guī)范體系的審視[J];江漢論壇;2015年06期

4 沈龍葉;;非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪是否存在未遂[J];中國(guó)檢察官;2014年14期

5 呂洪民;金福;;對(duì)非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪兜底條款的實(shí)證考察[J];人民司法;2014年11期

6 趙秉志;袁彬;;刑法研究的思維轉(zhuǎn)型與實(shí)踐發(fā)展——2013年我國(guó)刑法理論研究綜述[J];人民檢察;2014年01期

7 田宏杰;阮柏云;;非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪內(nèi)涵與外延擴(kuò)張限制思考[J];人民檢察;2012年23期

8 歐陽(yáng)本祺;;對(duì)非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪兜底性規(guī)定的實(shí)證分析[J];法學(xué);2012年07期

9 陳儀;;保護(hù)野生動(dòng)物抑或保護(hù)國(guó)家所有權(quán)——從私割鯨肉應(yīng)否處罰談開去[J];法學(xué);2012年06期

10 陳喬;;非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪兜底性條款的分析和適用 由一例案件引發(fā)的思考[J];中國(guó)檢察官;2012年04期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前5條

1 李小文;行政犯定罪的基本原理[D];上海交通大學(xué);2014年

2 陳超然;非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪適用范圍的擴(kuò)張及其限制研究[D];上海交通大學(xué);2013年

3 吳萇弘;個(gè)人信息的刑法保護(hù)研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2013年

4 陸岸;輕罪法建構(gòu)研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2012年

5 楊慶堂;非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪立法及司法適用研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2009年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 馬曉曉;非法獲取型侵犯公民個(gè)人信息犯罪問題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2016年

2 李風(fēng)偉;論非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪的認(rèn)定[D];西南政法大學(xué);2014年

3 徐孝帥;論非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪的認(rèn)定[D];上海社會(huì)科學(xué)院;2014年

4 李海燕;論非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪中的非法經(jīng)營(yíng)行為[D];吉林大學(xué);2013年

，

本文編號(hào)：2033629