本文關(guān)鍵詞：特殊盜竊未遂的刑事責(zé)任分析　出處：《法制與社會(huì)》2016年21期 　論文類型：期刊論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 特殊盜竊 入戶 未遂 但書條款

【摘要】：在《刑法修正案八》將入戶盜竊、攜帶兇器盜竊、扒竊這幾種特殊盜竊形態(tài)與普通盜竊、多次盜竊并列歸入同一法律條文后,司法實(shí)務(wù)中對(duì)于入戶盜竊等幾種特殊盜竊的未遂形態(tài)是否應(yīng)定罪處罰存在分歧。本文認(rèn)為對(duì)待特殊盜竊不能一概認(rèn)定罪或非罪,應(yīng)結(jié)合刑法但書條款、司法解釋及個(gè)案的具體情節(jié)進(jìn)行分析認(rèn)定。
[Abstract]:In the eighth Amendment to the Criminal Law, these special forms of theft, such as burglary, burglary with murder weapon and pickpocketing, were classified into the same legal provisions after many times of theft. In judicial practice, there are differences as to whether the attempted form of some special theft such as burglary should be convicted and punished. This article holds that special theft can not be considered as a crime or a non-crime, and should be combined with the proviso clause of criminal law. Judicial interpretation and the specific circumstances of the case for analysis and determination.
【作者單位】： 北京市密云區(qū)人民檢察院;
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3
【正文快照】： ，

本文編號(hào)：1388176