本文選題：電梯　切入點(diǎn)：生產(chǎn)、銷(xiāo)售偽劣產(chǎn)品罪　出處：《西南政法大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文　論文類(lèi)型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：近期我國(guó)各地電梯安全事故頻發(fā),國(guó)家一方面加強(qiáng)了電梯的維護(hù)和檢修,另一方面也加大了對(duì)電梯質(zhì)量的監(jiān)督力度。電梯安全是公共安全的重要組成部分,電梯事故的發(fā)生也會(huì)擾亂人民群眾正常的生產(chǎn)、生活秩序,而誘發(fā)事故的原因多種多樣,停電、使用不當(dāng)、質(zhì)量問(wèn)題等都有可能。如果電梯存在質(zhì)量問(wèn)題,除了涉及民法中的產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量瑕疵或缺陷之外,還可能涉及生產(chǎn)、銷(xiāo)售偽劣產(chǎn)品、非法經(jīng)營(yíng)等刑事犯罪,而由于在這些罪名之間存在著交叉領(lǐng)域,使得具體案件的認(rèn)定頗具難度。 本文由前幾年發(fā)生的一起涉及電梯質(zhì)量的刑事案件即“李秋天組裝銷(xiāo)售電梯案”引出本案是否應(yīng)被定罪及應(yīng)定何罪的問(wèn)題,結(jié)合刑法語(yǔ)境下國(guó)家規(guī)定的劃分標(biāo)準(zhǔn),追認(rèn)的適用范圍、罪刑法定原則下空白罪狀存在的合理性,以及生產(chǎn)、銷(xiāo)售偽劣產(chǎn)品罪、以危險(xiǎn)方法危害公共安全罪、非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪等罪的犯罪構(gòu)成,采用案例分析與法理分析相結(jié)合的方法就爭(zhēng)議問(wèn)題分別進(jìn)行了分析,論證了不構(gòu)成犯罪觀點(diǎn)的錯(cuò)誤性,得出了本案應(yīng)定非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪的最終結(jié)論。并希望經(jīng)過(guò)本案的分析,梳理這幾個(gè)罪名之間的區(qū)別,可以為日后相關(guān)案件的司法認(rèn)定提供幫助。 本文共分為三個(gè)部分。第一部分為案情簡(jiǎn)介。簡(jiǎn)要介紹了李秋天組裝銷(xiāo)售電梯案件始末以及司法機(jī)關(guān)對(duì)案件的處理結(jié)果。 第二部分為李秋天案分歧意見(jiàn)的歸納總結(jié)。在本案中,就犯罪嫌疑人李秋天的行為是否構(gòu)成犯罪以及構(gòu)成何罪存在廣泛爭(zhēng)議,主要集中在生產(chǎn)銷(xiāo)售偽劣產(chǎn)品罪、以危險(xiǎn)方法危害公共安全罪、非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪這三個(gè)罪名之間。 第三部分是本文的重點(diǎn),即結(jié)合犯罪構(gòu)成理論對(duì)案件進(jìn)行法理分析。首先立足案件本身論證了不構(gòu)成犯罪觀點(diǎn)的錯(cuò)誤性,其次針對(duì)本文第二部分列明爭(zhēng)議的三個(gè)罪名進(jìn)行逐個(gè)分析,提出了李秋天的行為不是生產(chǎn)、銷(xiāo)售偽劣產(chǎn)品,也不是以危險(xiǎn)方法危害公共安全,而是非法經(jīng)營(yíng),擾亂市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)秩序,應(yīng)以非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪論處的意見(jiàn)。
[Abstract]:Recently, elevator safety accidents have occurred frequently in various parts of our country. On the one hand, the state has strengthened the maintenance and maintenance of elevators, on the other hand, it has also increased its supervision of elevator quality. Elevator safety is an important part of public safety. The occurrence of elevator accidents will also disturb the normal production and living order of the people, and the causes of the accidents may vary, such as power outages, improper use, quality problems, etc. If there are quality problems in the elevators, In addition to the product quality defects or defects in the civil law, it may also involve the production, sale of fake and inferior products, illegal operation and other criminal offences, but due to the existence of overlapping fields between these charges, it is quite difficult to identify specific cases. In this paper, a criminal case involving elevator quality occurred in the past few years, that is, "Li Qiu assembling and selling Elevator case", leads to the question of whether this case should be convicted and what kind of offence should be convicted, combined with the standard of division stipulated by the state in the context of criminal law. The scope of application of the ratification, the reasonableness of the existence of blank crime under the principle of prescribed punishment for a crime, the crime of producing and selling fake and inferior products, the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means, the crime of illegal operation, etc. Using the method of case analysis and legal theory analysis, this paper analyzes the dispute separately, demonstrates the error of the view that does not constitute a crime, and draws the final conclusion that the case should be convicted of the crime of illegal business operation, and hopes to pass through the analysis of this case. Combing the differences between these charges can provide help for judicial determination of related cases in the future. This article is divided into three parts. The first part is the brief case of the case. The second part is the summary of different opinions in the Li Qiu case. In this case, there are extensive disputes on whether the behavior of the suspect Li Qiu constitutes a crime and what kind of crime, which is mainly focused on the crime of producing and selling fake and inferior products. Between the three crimes of endangering public safety by dangerous means and illegal operation. The third part is the focus of this paper, that is, combining the theory of criminal constitution to analyze the legal theory of cases. Firstly, based on the case itself, it demonstrates the error of the view that does not constitute a crime. Secondly, according to the three controversial charges listed in the second part of this article, it is pointed out that Li Qiu's behavior is not to produce, sell fake or inferior products, nor to endanger public safety by dangerous means, but to operate illegally. Disturbing the order of market economy, should be treated as illegal operation crime opinion.
【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】：2011
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D924.3;D920.5

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 但偉;論非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪[J];法商研究(中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));1999年02期

2 陳惜珍;;論非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪存在的合理性[J];法學(xué)雜志;2007年05期

3 梁慧星;中國(guó)產(chǎn)品責(zé)任法——兼論假冒偽劣之根源和對(duì)策[J];法學(xué);2001年06期

4 張貞蓉;;淺析罪刑法定主義下的空白罪狀問(wèn)題[J];法制與社會(huì);2010年02期

5 彭輔順;陳鵬展;;非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪研究述評(píng)[J];江蘇警官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年06期

6 于改之,包雯;生產(chǎn)、銷(xiāo)售偽劣商品犯罪若干問(wèn)題研究[J];河北法學(xué);2005年11期

7 楊歡進(jìn);王娟;;中國(guó)打擊假冒偽劣的立法缺陷與完善[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)與管理;2010年03期

8 龐達(dá);;淺論罪刑法定原則的適用[J];中國(guó)商界(上半月);2010年08期

9 蔡英;;罪刑法定對(duì)刑法適用解釋的制約與局限[J];理論與改革;2011年02期

10 史書(shū);;析危害公共安全罪的“公共安全”[J];長(zhǎng)沙民政職業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年03期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前2條

1 赫興旺;[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2006年

2 邵新;[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2006年

，

本文編號(hào)：1569268