本文選題：盜竊罪　切入點(diǎn)：扒竊　出處：《內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：2011年《刑法修正案(八)》將扒竊作為盜竊罪的新增罪狀規(guī)定在刑法典中。但對什么是扒竊以及扒竊的構(gòu)成要件等都未作出明確的規(guī)定,實(shí)屬空白罪狀。在司法實(shí)踐中,對于扒竊到底怎么認(rèn)定不同的人有不同的見解,若沒有一個(gè)明確的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)就很容易造成一個(gè)尷尬的局面,即同案不同判,有時(shí)裁判結(jié)果甚至大相徑庭。本文結(jié)合諸多學(xué)者對扒竊定義、構(gòu)成要件要素等的研究,力求明確扒竊的內(nèi)涵及邊界；并立足于扒竊的立法沿革及入罪理由,對扒竊型盜竊罪在司法實(shí)踐中的適用問題展開深入討論,力求為扒竊的認(rèn)定提供一條可行的路徑。 文章主要分為三部分。第一部分是對扒竊的立法沿革及入罪理由的探討。該部分先從現(xiàn)有的刑事立法入手,分析了自1986年以來我國刑法及其相關(guān)的司法解釋對扒竊的規(guī)定,結(jié)合當(dāng)時(shí)的不同背景分析了扒竊入罪的理由,指出扒竊行為具有三性——嚴(yán)重的主觀惡性、嚴(yán)重的社會危害性、財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)與公共秩序的雙重侵害性。第二部分是對扒竊在理論上的爭議與分歧的探討。包括扒竊的概念、.扒竊與攜帶兇器的關(guān)系、扒竊應(yīng)否限定在公共場所、扒竊是否要求具有秘密性、扒竊型盜竊罪是否存在未完成形態(tài)五個(gè)方面。扒竊是指以非法占有為目的,在公共場所秘密竊取他人隨身攜帶的財(cái)物的行為。扒竊的認(rèn)定不要求行為人攜帶兇器。不管是基于法律規(guī)范之間的相互銜接還是從司法實(shí)務(wù)的角度考慮,都應(yīng)將盜竊罪中的扒竊限定在公共場所。扒竊應(yīng)具有秘密性,即扒竊是乘人不覺而秘密取走他人財(cái)物,其手段以秘密為必要。關(guān)于扒竊型盜竊罪是否存在未完成形態(tài)的問題,本文持肯定觀點(diǎn)。第三部分是對扒竊在司法實(shí)踐中認(rèn)定問題的探討,包括扒竊成立盜竊罪的條件的認(rèn)定、公共場所的認(rèn)定、隨身攜帶財(cái)物的認(rèn)定以及扒竊出罪的認(rèn)定四個(gè)方面。扒竊成立盜竊罪的條件有四：一是行為發(fā)生在公共場所；二是行為人所竊取的應(yīng)是他人貼身攜帶的財(cái)物；三是行為人所竊取的財(cái)物體積相對較小；四是財(cái)物被竊取時(shí)必須正被他人控制支配。對公共場所的認(rèn)定,應(yīng)該把握好兩個(gè)維度：一是空間,二是人群。關(guān)于空間維度,即公共場所應(yīng)該是供人們進(jìn)行生活、娛樂等公共活動(dòng)的開放性空間。關(guān)于人群維度,首先應(yīng)該滿足空間維度,然后在這個(gè)空間內(nèi)必須有人群,且應(yīng)該至少有三人。對于隨身攜帶財(cái)物的認(rèn)定,本文支持物理接觸說,即隨身攜帶的財(cái)物應(yīng)該是被害人放在身上或放置于其貼身的財(cái)物。另一方面,關(guān)于扒竊的出罪,應(yīng)該從三個(gè)方面進(jìn)行認(rèn)定：一是把握好扒竊的出罪機(jī)制；二是扒竊的財(cái)物應(yīng)該是具有一定價(jià)值,值得刑法保護(hù)；三是區(qū)分好扒竊罪與非罪的界限。
[Abstract]:The 2011 Criminal Law Amendment (8) stipulates pickpocketing as a new crime of theft in the Criminal Code. However, there are no clear provisions on what is pickpocketing and the constituent elements of pickpocketing, which is a blank crime. There are different views on how pickpockets can be identified as different people. Without a clear standard of identification, it is easy to create an awkward situation, that is, different judgments in the same case. Sometimes the result of judgment is even quite different. This paper, based on the research of many scholars on the definition and elements of pickpocketing, tries to clarify the connotation and boundary of pickpocketing, and based on the legislative evolution of pickpocketing and the reasons for incrimination. The application of pickpocketing theft in judicial practice is discussed in depth in order to provide a feasible way for the identification of pickpocketing. The article is mainly divided into three parts. The first part is to explore the legislative evolution of pickpocketing and the reasons for its incrimination. This part begins with the existing criminal legislation and analyzes the provisions of the criminal law and its related judicial interpretations on pickpocketing since 1986. Combining with the different backgrounds at that time, this paper analyzes the reasons for the crime of pickpocketing, and points out that pickpocketing is of three-serious subjective malignancy and serious social harmfulness. The second part is to discuss the theoretical disputes and differences of pickpocketing, including the concept of pickpocketing, the relationship between pickpocketing and carrying murder weapon, and whether pickpocketing should be limited to public places. Whether pickpocketing requires secrecy or not, whether there are five aspects of the crime of pickpocketing and whether there are unfinished forms. Pickpocketing refers to the purpose of illegal possession. The act of secretly stealing property carried by another person in a public place. The identification of pickpocketing does not require the perpetrator to carry the murder weapon. Whether based on the connection between legal norms or from the perspective of judicial practice, Pickpocketing should be restricted to public places. Pickpocketing should be secret, that is to say, pickpocketing is to take away other people's property without knowing it, and its means are necessary to keep secret. On the question of whether there is an incomplete form of pickpocketing theft, The third part is the discussion of the identification of pickpocketing in judicial practice, including the determination of the conditions for the establishment of the crime of theft by pickpocketing, the identification of public places, There are four conditions for the establishment of theft by pickpocketing: one is that the behavior occurs in public place, the other is that the person who steals is the property that other person carries closely. The third is that the property stolen by the perpetrator is relatively small, and the fourth is that the property must be controlled by others when it is stolen. Two dimensions should be grasped in the identification of public places: one is space, the other is crowd. That is, a public place should be an open space for people to live, entertain, and so on. With regard to the crowd dimension, it should first satisfy the spatial dimension, and then there must be a crowd in this space. And there should be at least three people. With regard to the identification of carry-on property, this article supports the physical contact saying that the property to be carried with you should be the property that the victim put on or placed on his body. On the other hand, with regard to the crime of pickpocketing, It should be determined from three aspects: first, grasp the crime mechanism of pickpocketing; second, pickpocketing property should have certain value, worthy of criminal law protection; third, distinguish between pickpocketing crime and non-crime boundaries.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李�；�,童偉華;論行為犯的構(gòu)造[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2002年06期

2 陳家林;;論刑法中的扒竊——對《刑法修正案(八)》的分析與解讀[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2011年04期

3 葉堅(jiān),戴旭峰;聾啞人扒竊的社會分析[J];江蘇警官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年03期

4 徐秀林;;聾啞人扒竊犯罪的特點(diǎn)、原因及預(yù)防對策[J];廣州市公安管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年01期

5 陳志軍;翟金鵬;;扒竊行為特征與追訴標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的司法認(rèn)定研究[J];中國人民公安大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會科學(xué)版);2013年03期

6 李翔;;新型盜竊罪的司法適用路徑[J];華東政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2011年05期

7 李宇飛;;淺析當(dāng)前扒竊案件的特點(diǎn)及反扒對策[J];河南公安高等�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2007年05期

8 白X};;淺議扒竊行為[J];湖南警察學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2012年01期

9 吳加明;;《刑法修正案(八)》中“扒竊”的司法實(shí)踐認(rèn)定[J];中國檢察官;2011年14期

10 蔡國柱;對當(dāng)前北京市公共電汽車上扒竊犯罪活動(dòng)的分析及工作對策[J];北京人民警察學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2002年03期

，

本文編號：1648035