【摘要】： 目前,我國正處于經(jīng)濟(jì)的高速發(fā)展期和市場(chǎng)的轉(zhuǎn)軌期,一些侵犯公私財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)和破壞市場(chǎng)有序發(fā)展的背信行為屢見不鮮。然而,我國現(xiàn)行刑事立法在規(guī)制這些背信行為上卻存在一些缺陷和不足,常常會(huì)力不從心。另外,我國學(xué)者對(duì)背信犯罪的理解也不統(tǒng)一,對(duì)背信行為的認(rèn)識(shí)仍存在偏差,對(duì)一些不是背信行為的違法行為卻建議立法機(jī)關(guān)增設(shè)背信罪予以規(guī)制。這些現(xiàn)象反映了我國在背信犯罪的理論研究上存在嚴(yán)重的不足,從而導(dǎo)致背信犯罪立法上的滯后。德國和日本是背信罪理論學(xué)說和立法經(jīng)驗(yàn)最豐富的兩個(gè)國家,因此,研究德日典型背信罪的立法現(xiàn)狀以及相關(guān)學(xué)說,分析我國背信犯罪的立法現(xiàn)狀,深入比較我國背信犯罪與德日典型背信罪的異同,有助于我們正確理解背信罪和背信行為的內(nèi)涵、尋求背信犯罪的本質(zhì)、充分認(rèn)識(shí)我國背信犯罪的不足,這對(duì)提高我國背信犯罪研究的理論水平和完善我國背信犯罪的立法都具有十分重要的意義。 本文共分導(dǎo)言、主體和結(jié)語三部分。導(dǎo)言部分重點(diǎn)闡述了本文的選題背景和研究意義、背信犯罪相關(guān)問題的研究現(xiàn)狀和不足之處,以及本文的創(chuàng)新和不足。由于我國現(xiàn)有刑事立法規(guī)制背信行為的不足和少數(shù)學(xué)者對(duì)背信犯罪的理解偏差,使得當(dāng)前進(jìn)行我國背信犯罪與德日背信罪的比較研究具有十分重要的現(xiàn)實(shí)意義。然而,我國目前對(duì)背信犯罪的理論研究卻主要局限于簡單地介紹德日背信罪的立法現(xiàn)狀和相關(guān)學(xué)說,沒有對(duì)背信罪的內(nèi)涵以及背信行為與其他債務(wù)不履行行為的區(qū)分做深入分析;對(duì)背信損害上市公司利益罪和背信運(yùn)用受托財(cái)產(chǎn)罪的研究也僅限于它們本身的犯罪構(gòu)成要件分析和司法認(rèn)定上,沒有提出我國背信犯罪的本質(zhì)學(xué)說,也缺乏對(duì)我國背信犯罪與德日背信罪的系統(tǒng)比較研究。因此,有必要通過對(duì)德日背信罪的立法背景、立法沿革和現(xiàn)行立法的研究來進(jìn)一步闡述背信罪的內(nèi)涵,合理區(qū)分背信行為與一般債務(wù)不履行行為的不同,正確理解背信罪的本質(zhì),并在此基礎(chǔ)上,對(duì)比研究我國背信犯罪與德日背信罪的異同,以期對(duì)我國背信犯罪的立法完善提出相應(yīng)的對(duì)策。 本文主體部分共分為五章。第一章“背信罪概論”是對(duì)背信罪的整體介紹。本章首先對(duì)背信罪的基本結(jié)構(gòu)、我國少數(shù)學(xué)者對(duì)背信罪的誤解以及背信罪的罪名選擇進(jìn)行了詳細(xì)的分析;并在此基礎(chǔ)上,從縱向的時(shí)間軸上,對(duì)背信罪的萌芽和形成進(jìn)程及背信罪產(chǎn)生的原因和基礎(chǔ)進(jìn)行了完整的闡述,從而為正確理解背信罪的內(nèi)涵奠定了基礎(chǔ);此外,本章從橫向的空間軸上,對(duì)目前世界上沒有規(guī)定背信罪以及規(guī)定了背信罪的其他國家和地區(qū)的立法進(jìn)行了詳細(xì)的介紹,為下文的比較研究埋下伏筆。 第二章“德日典型背信罪之研究”對(duì)德國和日本背信罪的現(xiàn)行立法進(jìn)行了深入的分析和研究�！暗聡承抛锏默F(xiàn)行立法研究”從德國刑法第266條的規(guī)定出發(fā),將德國背信行為的犯罪構(gòu)成要件分為兩類,一是濫權(quán)構(gòu)成要件;二是背托構(gòu)成要件。根據(jù)德國學(xué)界的通說,符合濫權(quán)構(gòu)成要件的犯罪行為是指行為人逾越內(nèi)部信任關(guān)系的許可,而行使外部法律權(quán)限的行為,因此,權(quán)限濫用行為必須符合“對(duì)外性”和“法律行為”這兩個(gè)條件。背托構(gòu)成要件所規(guī)制的犯罪行為是指行為人違反財(cái)產(chǎn)管理義務(wù)的行為。這一范圍相當(dāng)寬泛,并不要求背信行為具有對(duì)外性,也不要求它是法律行為。然而,不管是濫權(quán)構(gòu)成要件還是背托構(gòu)成要件,都必須以造成本人財(cái)產(chǎn)損害作為背信罪成立的前提�！叭毡颈承抛锏默F(xiàn)行立法研究”從日本刑法第247條的規(guī)定出發(fā),對(duì)背信罪的犯罪成立條件中的主體、行為、主觀目的、財(cái)產(chǎn)損失的結(jié)果等要素進(jìn)行分析。背信罪屬于身份犯,其主體限于“為他人處理事務(wù)的人”。所謂為他人處理事務(wù),是指為了他人處理他人的事務(wù)。所以,如果是自己的事務(wù),即使是為了他人而處理,也不符合本罪的構(gòu)成要件,這實(shí)際上也涉及到背信行為與一般債務(wù)不履行行為的區(qū)分。團(tuán)藤重光博士在總結(jié)何謂他人的事務(wù)時(shí),提出了“對(duì)內(nèi)的關(guān)系”和“對(duì)向性關(guān)系”的概念,但卻沒有給出明確的定義和解釋。此外,日本的背信罪還要求主體以為自己或第三人謀取利益為目的,或者出于對(duì)本人造成損害的目的實(shí)施違背任務(wù)的行為,給本人造成財(cái)產(chǎn)上的損失。 本文的第三章“我國背信犯罪的立法現(xiàn)狀”則從我國刑事立法實(shí)際出發(fā),分析和研究了我國背信犯罪的現(xiàn)狀。我國1979年刑法和1997年刑法沒有對(duì)普通的背信罪作出規(guī)定,直到2006年通過的《刑法修正案(六)》才規(guī)定了兩個(gè)特殊的背信犯罪,一個(gè)是背信損害上市公司利益罪,另一個(gè)則是背信運(yùn)用受托財(cái)產(chǎn)罪。故本章分為兩節(jié),第一節(jié)“背信損害上市公司利益罪”介紹了該罪的立法背景、研究和分析了有關(guān)該罪的罪名爭議,從而得出筆者的觀點(diǎn):“背信損害上市公司利益罪”這一罪名不僅表達(dá)簡潔、通俗、科學(xué)、合理,而且準(zhǔn)確揭示了“背信”本質(zhì),并反映了“損害”這一核心要素,因而該罪名能全面反映本罪的外延和相關(guān)界限,有利于罪與非罪、此罪與彼罪的界定和區(qū)分。此外,本節(jié)還從主體要件、主觀要件、客觀要件以及犯罪客體等方面對(duì)背信損害上市公司利益罪進(jìn)行分析研究,全面把握背信損害上市利益罪的犯罪構(gòu)成要件。第二節(jié)“背信運(yùn)用受托財(cái)產(chǎn)罪”介紹了該罪的立法背景,研究和分析了該罪的犯罪構(gòu)成要件,從主體要件、主觀要件、客觀要件以及犯罪客體等方面整體把握背信損害上市公司利益罪的犯罪構(gòu)成要件。 第四章“我國背信犯罪與德日典型背信罪的比較”是全文的重點(diǎn)所在,在前文的論述基礎(chǔ)上,分別從背信犯罪的本質(zhì)和犯罪成立要件兩個(gè)方面對(duì)兩者進(jìn)行對(duì)比研究。德國和日本學(xué)術(shù)界對(duì)于背信罪的本質(zhì)一直存在較大爭議,比較有代表性的觀點(diǎn)有濫用權(quán)限說、背信說、背信的濫用權(quán)限說、內(nèi)部信任關(guān)系說等等。而我國的兩個(gè)背信犯罪將“背信”的意義限定在“違背忠實(shí)義務(wù)”和“違背受托義務(wù)”上面,這對(duì)認(rèn)識(shí)背信犯罪的本質(zhì)提供了立法依據(jù)和新的思路。筆者通過比較分析,認(rèn)為背信說從違反信任關(guān)系造成財(cái)產(chǎn)的損害角度揭示了背信罪的本質(zhì),具有正確合理的內(nèi)核,但如果無限定地理解作為背信行為前提的信任關(guān)系這一極為抽象的概念,將會(huì)使背信罪的界限變得模糊,不利于背信行為與一般債務(wù)不履行行為的區(qū)分。日本團(tuán)藤重光博士曾提出“對(duì)內(nèi)關(guān)系(內(nèi)部關(guān)系)”與“對(duì)向性關(guān)系”的區(qū)分標(biāo)準(zhǔn),但未能明確它們的內(nèi)涵。筆者在綜合比較研究的基礎(chǔ)上,提出了自己的關(guān)于“對(duì)內(nèi)的關(guān)系(內(nèi)部關(guān)系)”和“對(duì)向性關(guān)系”的見解。對(duì)內(nèi)的關(guān)系,指的是行為人作為本人處理相關(guān)事務(wù)的延伸體,與本人之間形成內(nèi)部的信任關(guān)系。兩者在該事務(wù)的處理上,是作為同一當(dāng)事方出現(xiàn)的。行為人的行為指向的是第三方,或者不特定的相對(duì)方,但絕對(duì)不能指向本人。而對(duì)向性關(guān)系,則是指雙方互為行為相對(duì)人的關(guān)系,他們不是作為同一當(dāng)事方,而是作為不同的相對(duì)方出現(xiàn)的。行為人的行為指向的是本人。以此種“內(nèi)部關(guān)系”的見解為依托,筆者進(jìn)一步提出了關(guān)于背信犯罪本質(zhì)的新觀點(diǎn)“事務(wù)處理的內(nèi)部信任關(guān)系說”:背信犯罪的本質(zhì)是事務(wù)處理活動(dòng)過程中的受托主體違背與本人之間的內(nèi)部信任關(guān)系,未能從本人的最大利益出發(fā)為其處理事務(wù),而導(dǎo)致本人財(cái)產(chǎn)損害的財(cái)產(chǎn)性犯罪行為。 另外,本文第四章也對(duì)我國背信犯罪與德日背信罪的犯罪成立要件進(jìn)行了比較研究。通過對(duì)比,筆者發(fā)現(xiàn)它們既有相同之處,又各有自己的特色。首先,從主體上看,我國背信犯罪與德日典型背信罪都是身份犯,其主體都是特殊主體,都是“為他人處理事務(wù)之人”。但我國的兩個(gè)背信犯罪中,背信損害上市公司利益罪既包括自然人犯罪,也包括單位犯罪;背信運(yùn)用受托財(cái)產(chǎn)罪則只能是單位犯罪。而德國背信罪的主體只能是自然人犯罪,不能是單位或法人犯罪。并且,從主體的涵蓋范圍看,我國兩個(gè)背信犯罪的主體涵蓋范圍還不如德國背信罪主體的涵蓋范圍大。其次,從客觀方面看,我國的背信犯罪與德日背信罪都是主體實(shí)施的違背信任的行為,都是財(cái)產(chǎn)性犯罪。但我國背信犯罪與德日背信罪所包含的“背信”的具體含義不同,行為的涵蓋范圍也不同。并且,德國和日本的背信罪都是結(jié)果犯,以造成本人的財(cái)產(chǎn)損失為必要。我國的背信損害上市公司利益罪也是結(jié)果犯,以造成上市公司重大損失為犯罪成立要件;但背信運(yùn)用受托財(cái)產(chǎn)罪卻是情節(jié)犯,以“情節(jié)嚴(yán)重”為要件。再次,從主觀方面看,日本的背信罪,在主觀上除了必須出自故意之外,還必須意圖為自己或第三人謀取利益獲取給本人造成損害,即具有圖利或加害目的,是目的犯。而德國背信罪與我國的兩個(gè)特殊背信犯罪都沒有此種目的上的特殊要求,不是目的犯。最后,從犯罪客體或保護(hù)的法益來看,背信損失上市公司利益罪侵犯的是雙重客體,不僅妨礙了公司、企業(yè)的管理秩序,也同時(shí)侵犯了上市公司的財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)。背信運(yùn)用受托財(cái)產(chǎn)罪侵犯的是簡單客體,即破壞了金融管理秩序。而德國和日本的背信罪所保護(hù)的法益則是本人的財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)。 通過上述比較研究,可以發(fā)現(xiàn),我國的背信犯罪在主體、行為等方面比德日背信罪的范圍規(guī)定得要窄,在規(guī)制一般的背信行為時(shí),出現(xiàn)了一些力不從心的情況�；谏鲜鼋Y(jié)論,本文第五章提出了完善我國背信犯罪的立法建議。本章首先論證了我國增設(shè)普通背信罪的必要性和可行性,并提出了我國增設(shè)背信罪的模式及路徑構(gòu)想、背信罪犯罪構(gòu)成要件以及背信罪刑事處罰的設(shè)置構(gòu)想。同時(shí),現(xiàn)有的兩個(gè)背信犯罪由于其規(guī)制主體的特殊性,在實(shí)踐中仍然有存在的必要,從而與新增設(shè)的背信罪形成特別法與普通法的法條競(jìng)合關(guān)系。當(dāng)然,這兩個(gè)特殊的背信犯罪在主體范圍、行為方式以及情節(jié)結(jié)果等方面還存在一些不足之處,應(yīng)當(dāng)適當(dāng)改進(jìn),予以完善。對(duì)于背信損害上市公司利益罪,筆者建議增加違法分紅的行為樣態(tài),作為行為方式之六,即“違反公司法規(guī)定分配利潤或股本金的”;對(duì)于背信運(yùn)用受托財(cái)產(chǎn)罪,筆者建議增設(shè)自然人犯罪主體,并取消背信運(yùn)用受托財(cái)產(chǎn)罪的“情節(jié)嚴(yán)重”的情節(jié)要件,增加“致使客戶遭受重大損失”的結(jié)果要件。 本文第三部分是結(jié)語。在對(duì)上文主體部分進(jìn)行研究和分析的基礎(chǔ)上,結(jié)語部分對(duì)筆者的主要觀點(diǎn)和研究結(jié)論進(jìn)行了集中的梳理。第一,筆者首次明確了作為區(qū)分“他人的事務(wù)”與“自己的事務(wù)”以及背信行為與一般債務(wù)不履行行為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的“對(duì)內(nèi)的關(guān)系(內(nèi)部關(guān)系)”與“對(duì)向性關(guān)系”的具體內(nèi)涵。這樣就能通過判別行為人與本人之間的關(guān)系是屬于“內(nèi)部關(guān)系”還是“對(duì)向性關(guān)系”,來判斷行為人的行為是否構(gòu)成背信行為。換而言之,“對(duì)內(nèi)的關(guān)系(內(nèi)部關(guān)系)”與“對(duì)向性關(guān)系”的明確使得背信罪的內(nèi)涵和范圍變得清晰可見。第二,筆者通過比較研究德日背信罪的諸多本質(zhì)學(xué)說以及我國背信犯罪中的背信本質(zhì),吸收背信說的合理內(nèi)核,提出背信犯罪本質(zhì)的新觀點(diǎn)“事務(wù)處理的內(nèi)部信任關(guān)系說”,即背信犯罪的本質(zhì)是事務(wù)處理活動(dòng)過程中的受托主體違背與本人之間的內(nèi)部信任關(guān)系,未能從本人的最大利益出發(fā)為其處理事務(wù),而導(dǎo)致本人財(cái)產(chǎn)損害的財(cái)產(chǎn)性犯罪行為。第三,筆者在比較分析我國背信犯罪與德日背信罪的犯罪構(gòu)成要件的基礎(chǔ)上,提出了我國背信犯罪立法的完善建議。筆者建議我國增設(shè)一個(gè)普通的背信罪,對(duì)嚴(yán)重的背信行為予以普遍性的規(guī)制。同時(shí),現(xiàn)有的兩個(gè)背信犯罪由于其規(guī)制主體的特殊性,在實(shí)踐中仍然有存在的必要,從而與新增設(shè)的背信罪形成特別法與普通法的法條競(jìng)合關(guān)系。當(dāng)然,這兩個(gè)特殊的背信犯罪在主體范圍、行為方式以及情節(jié)結(jié)果等方面還存在一些不足的地方,應(yīng)當(dāng)適當(dāng)改進(jìn),予以完善。
[Abstract]:At present, our country is in the period of rapid economic development and market transition, some violations of public and private property rights and damage to the orderly development of the market betrayal behavior is common. Understanding of the breach of faith is not uniform, there are still some deviations in the understanding of the breach of faith, and some illegal acts are not breach of faith but proposed to legislature to set up the crime of breach of faith to be regulated. These phenomena reflect that China's theoretical research on the crime of breach of trust is seriously inadequate, resulting in the legislative lag of the crime of breach of trust. Therefore, it is helpful for us to understand the connotation of the crime of betrayal and the act of betrayal correctly by studying the legislative status quo and related theories of the typical crime of betrayal in Germany and Japan, analyzing the legislative status quo of the crime of betrayal in China, and comparing the similarities and differences between the crime of betrayal in China and the typical crime of betrayal in Germany and Japan. The essence of the crime of betrayal and the insufficiency of the crime of betrayal in China are of great significance to the improvement of the theoretical level of the study of the crime of betrayal and the perfection of the legislation of the crime of betrayal in China.
This article is divided into three parts: the introduction, the main body and the conclusion. The introduction focuses on the background and significance of the topic, the research status and deficiencies of the crime of betrayal, as well as the innovation and deficiencies of this article. It is of great practical significance to make a comparative study of the crime of betrayal in China and the crime of betrayal in Germany and Japan. The research on the crime of betraying the interests of listed companies and the crime of using trusted property by betrayal is also limited to the analysis of their own constitutive elements and judicial cognizance, without putting forward the essential theory of the crime of betrayal in China, and lacking the systematic comparative study on the crime of betrayal in China and the crime of betrayal in Germany and Japan. Therefore, it is necessary to further elaborate the connotation of the crime of betrayal through the study of the legislative background, legislative evolution and current legislation of the crime of betrayal in Germany and Japan, to rationally distinguish the difference between the act of betrayal and the act of non-performance of general debts, to correctly understand the nature of the crime of betrayal, and on this basis, to study the similarities and differences between the crime of betrayal in China and the crime of betrayal in Germany In order to put forward corresponding countermeasures for perfecting the legislation of breach of trust in China.
The main part of this article is divided into five chapters.The first chapter is the introduction of the crime of betrayal.Firstly, this chapter analyzes the basic structure of the crime of betrayal, the misunderstanding of the crime of betrayal by a few scholars in our country and the choice of the crime of betrayal in detail.On this basis, from the vertical time axis, the germination and the crime of betrayal. The forming process and the causes and foundation of the crime of betrayal are expounded in detail, which lays the foundation for a correct understanding of the connotation of the crime of betrayal. In addition, this chapter gives a detailed introduction to the legislation of other countries and regions which have not stipulated the crime of betrayal in the world and have stipulated it from the horizontal space axis. Comparative study foreshadowed.
Chapter 2 "Research on the typical crime of betrayal in Germany and Japan" makes a thorough analysis and Study on the current legislation of the crime of betrayal in Germany and Japan. According to the general theory of German academic circles, the criminal act that conforms to the constitutive requirements of abuse of power refers to the act of the actor's exceeding the permission of internal trust and exercising external legal authority. Therefore, the abuse of power must conform to the two conditions of "externality" and "legal act". This scope is quite broad, does not require that the act of breach of trust has externality, nor does it require that it is a legal act. However, whether it is abuse of power or backing constitutive elements, must cause damage to their property as the premise of the crime of breach of trust. From the article 247 of the Japanese Criminal Law, this article analyzes the subject, behavior, subjective purpose and the result of property loss in the condition of the establishment of the crime of betrayal. Therefore, if it is one's own business, even if it is dealt with for the sake of others, it does not conform to the constitutive requirements of this crime, which actually involves the distinction between breach of faith and general non-performance of debt. In addition, the crime of betrayal in Japan requires the subject to act in violation of his duty for the purpose of seeking the interests of himself or a third person, or for the purpose of causing damage to himself or herself, resulting in loss of property.
In the third chapter of this article, "the legislative status quo of the crime of breach of faith in our country" proceeds from the actual criminal legislation of our country, analyzes and studies the present situation of the crime of breach of faith in our country. One is the crime of betraying the interests of listed companies, the other is the crime of betraying the use of trusted property.Therefore, this chapter is divided into two sections.The first section introduces the legislative background of the crime of betraying the interests of listed companies, studies and analyzes the disputes about the crime, and draws the author's view: "the crime of betraying the interests of listed companies to harm the interests of listed companies." "This charge not only expresses concisely, popular, scientific and reasonable, but also accurately reveals the essence of"betrayal"and reflects the core element of"damage", so the charge can fully reflect the extension and related boundaries of the crime, which is conducive to the definition and distinction between the crime and the non-crime. In addition, this section also from the main elements, subjective elements. The second section introduces the legislative background of the crime of betraying the use of trusted property, studies and analyzes the constitutive elements of the crime from the main elements and subjective aspects. We should grasp the constitutive elements of the crime of betraying the interests of listed companies as a whole in terms of the important elements, the objective elements and the object of the crime.
Chapter IV "Comparison of the Crime of Breach of Faith in China and the Typical Crime of Breach of Faith in Germany and Japan" is the focus of the full text. On the basis of the previous discussion, the author makes a comparative study on the two aspects of the nature of the crime of breach of faith and the elements of its establishment. There are abuse of authority theory, breach of trust theory, abuse of authority theory, internal trust relationship theory and so on. However, the meaning of "breach of faith" is limited to "breach of fiduciary duty" and "breach of fiduciary duty", which provides legislative basis and new ideas for understanding the nature of breach of trust crime. Through comparative analysis, the author thinks that the theory of breach of trust reveals the essence of the crime of breach of trust from the angle of property damage caused by breach of trust, and has a correct and reasonable core. But if we understand the extremely abstract concept of the relationship of trust as the premise of breach of trust indefinitely, it will blur the boundaries of the crime of breach of trust, which is not conducive to breach of trust and general debt. Doctor Takato Chuangguang of Japan has put forward the criteria for distinguishing "internal relations" from "opposite relations", but has not clearly defined their connotations. On the basis of a comprehensive comparative study, the author puts forward his own views on "internal relations" and "opposite relations". Internal relationship refers to the internal trust relationship between the actor and himself as an extension of his dealing with related affairs. Both of them appear as the same party in dealing with the affair. The actor's behavior refers to a third party, or an unspecified opposite party, but can never point to himself. The behavior of the perpetrator points to himself. Based on this view of "internal relationship", the author further puts forward a new viewpoint on the nature of the crime of breach of faith, "the internal trust barrier in dealing with affairs". The essence of the crime of betrayal is that the trustee violates the internal trust relationship between himself and himself in the process of dealing with affairs, fails to deal with affairs for the trustee from his own best interests, and causes his property damage.
In addition, the fourth chapter of this article also makes a comparative study on the elements of the establishment of the crime of betrayal in China and the crime of betrayal in Germany and Japan. Through the comparison, the author finds that they have both similarities and their own characteristics. But in the two crimes of betrayal in China, the crime of betraying the interests of listed companies includes both the crime of natural persons and the crime of unit; the crime of betraying the use of trusted property can only be a unit crime. Second, from an objective point of view, China's crime of betrayal and the crime of betrayal of Germany and Japan are both acts of breach of trust committed by the main body and are property crimes. The specific meaning of "betrayal" is different, and the scope of the behavior is different. Moreover, the crime of betrayal in Germany and Japan are both consequential offences, so it is necessary to cause personal property losses. Again, from the subjective point of view, Japan's crime of betrayal, in addition to its intent, must also intend to seek for the interests of oneself or a third person to cause harm to oneself, that is, with the purpose of profit or harm, is a crime of purpose. Germany's crime of betrayal and China's two special betrayal. In the end, the crime of betraying the interests of listed companies infringes on the dual objects, which not only hinders the management order of the companies and enterprises, but also infringes the property rights of listed companies. The single object destroys the order of financial management, while the legal interests protected by the crime of betrayal in Germany and Japan are my property rights.
Through the above-mentioned comparative study, we can find that the scope of the crime of betrayal in China is narrower than that in Germany and Japan in terms of subject and behavior, and there are some inadequate cases in regulating the general act of betrayal. The establishment of our country
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2010
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 李冰聰;;淺談我國緩刑類型的完善[J];現(xiàn)代婦女(下旬);2013年03期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前6條

1 楊玲;背信損害上市公司利益罪若干問題研究[D];中國青年政治學(xué)院;2011年

2 秦繼紅;普通背信入罪探析[D];昆明理工大學(xué);2012年

3 魏華;完善我國刑法中的背信犯罪[D];上海社會(huì)科學(xué)院;2012年

4 陳樹嬌;背信運(yùn)用受托財(cái)產(chǎn)罪客觀要件研究[D];西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2012年

5 王傳嬌;違法運(yùn)用資金罪與背信運(yùn)用受托財(cái)產(chǎn)罪之比較研究[D];西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2012年

6 王金凱;背信損害上市公司利益罪研究[D];華僑大學(xué);2013年

，

本文編號(hào)：2246603