發(fā)布時(shí)間：2019-01-19 11:21

【摘要】：隨著改革開(kāi)放日益深入,我國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)迅速發(fā)展,與此同時(shí),人們之間的經(jīng)濟(jì)交往日益密切,侵犯財(cái)產(chǎn)類犯罪也更加猖獗,職務(wù)侵占罪作為侵犯財(cái)產(chǎn)類犯罪的重要組成部分也呈現(xiàn)逐年遞增趨勢(shì)。但是相對(duì)其他侵犯財(cái)產(chǎn)類犯罪而言,職務(wù)侵占罪的罪名確立時(shí)間相對(duì)較短,我國(guó)刑事立法上一直將其并入貪污罪處罰,直到1995年《關(guān)于懲治違反公司法的犯罪的決定》的頒布,職務(wù)侵占罪才作為一個(gè)獨(dú)立的罪名從貪污罪中分化出來(lái),開(kāi)始在《刑法》中占據(jù)一席之地。由于罪名確立時(shí)問(wèn)相對(duì)較短,加之司法實(shí)踐中案例的復(fù)雜性,職務(wù)侵占罪往往在認(rèn)定時(shí)有-定難度。 本文的重點(diǎn)是從犯罪構(gòu)成的角度分析職務(wù)侵占罪,解決如何理解職務(wù)侵占罪的主體以及“利用職務(wù)上的便利”的問(wèn)題,結(jié)合盜竊罪與本罪的區(qū)別最終對(duì)李江的行為進(jìn)行定性：李江利用職務(wù)上的便利非法占有公司財(cái)物的行為構(gòu)成職務(wù)侵占罪而不是盜竊罪。 本文分為三個(gè)部分,第一部分,介紹李江職務(wù)侵占案的案情、一二審判決以及案件審理過(guò)程中的爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn),明確本文討論重點(diǎn)是李江的行為構(gòu)成盜竊罪還是職務(wù)侵占罪。第二部分,筆者針對(duì)案件爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)進(jìn)行法理分析。首先,從犯罪構(gòu)成角度分析職務(wù)侵占罪及職務(wù)侵占罪在司法實(shí)踐中的界定問(wèn)題；其次,分析盜竊罪的犯罪構(gòu)成；再次,明確職務(wù)侵占罪與盜竊罪的區(qū)別及在實(shí)踐中如何界定問(wèn)題。第三部分,在本文第二部分的法理分析的基礎(chǔ)上,聯(lián)系李江的具體行為,另從量刑角度分析,終而認(rèn)定其行為的性質(zhì),即李江的行為構(gòu)成職務(wù)侵占罪而不是盜竊罪。
[Abstract]:With the deepening of reform and opening up, China's economy is developing rapidly. At the same time, the economic exchanges between people are becoming closer and closer, and the crime of infringing property is becoming more rampant. As an important part of the crime of infringing property, the crime of duty embezzlement also shows an increasing trend year by year. However, compared with other crimes of infringing property, the crime of duty embezzlement has been established for a relatively short time. In our criminal legislation, it has been incorporated into the crime of corruption punishment until the promulgation of the decision on punishing crimes against the Company Law in 1995. As an independent crime, the crime of duty embezzlement is divided from the crime of embezzlement and begins to occupy a place in the Criminal Law. Because of the relatively short questions when the charges were established, and the complexity of the cases in the judicial practice, the crime of duty embezzlement is often found to be difficult to determine. The focus of this paper is to analyze the crime of duty embezzlement from the angle of the constitution of crime, to solve the problem of how to understand the subject of the crime of duty embezzlement and to "make use of the convenience of duty". Combined with the difference between theft and this crime, Li Jiang's behavior is characterized: the crime of duty embezzlement, not theft, is constituted by the act of taking advantage of his position to illegally occupy the company's property. This paper is divided into three parts. The first part introduces the case of Li Jiang's duty embezzlement case, the judgment of first and second instance and the focus of the dispute in the trial process. It is clear that the focus of this discussion is the crime of theft or the crime of duty usurpation. The second part, the author carries on the legal theory analysis to the case dispute focal point. Firstly, it analyzes the definition of duty embezzlement crime and duty embezzlement crime in judicial practice from the angle of crime constitution, secondly, analyzes the criminal constitution of theft crime. Thirdly, it clarifies the difference between duty embezzlement and theft and how to define the problem in practice. The third part, on the basis of the legal theory analysis of the second part of this article, connecting with Li Jiang's concrete behavior, and analyzing from the angle of sentencing, finally determines the nature of his behavior, that is, Li Jiang's behavior constitutes the crime of duty embezzlement rather than the crime of larceny.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：蘭州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 劉娜;職務(wù)侵占罪與貪污罪界限研究[D];沈陽(yáng)師范大學(xué);2013年

2 張巍;職務(wù)侵占罪與盜竊罪界限研究[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2012年

3 王秀麗;職務(wù)侵占罪司法疑難問(wèn)題研究[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：2411326