本文選題：平和竊取說 + 秘密竊取說　； 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：我國傳統(tǒng)刑法理論主張“秘密竊取”是盜竊罪客觀要件的本質(zhì)特征，同時(shí)也是盜竊罪區(qū)別其它財(cái)產(chǎn)犯罪的重要標(biāo)志。但是通說在論述秘密竊取觀點(diǎn)時(shí)沒有正確處理主觀秘密性和客觀秘密性的關(guān)系，由此招致了批評(píng)。部分學(xué)者在借鑒德日等國刑法理論的基礎(chǔ)上，提出了平和竊取說，對(duì)盜竊罪進(jìn)行了重新的定義，以及對(duì)盜竊罪與其他財(cái)產(chǎn)犯罪的界限進(jìn)行了新的界定，同時(shí)對(duì)秘密竊取說進(jìn)行了全面批判。但是，平和竊取說超出國民預(yù)測(cè)能力，違背了罪刑法定的基本原則；未考慮我國刑罰體系設(shè)置的合理性；同時(shí)該理論具有自身無法克服的理論缺陷，對(duì)于秘密竊取說的批判也缺乏充足的理由和依據(jù)。因此，在目前秘密竊取說仍為我國刑法理論界和實(shí)務(wù)界乃至廣大國民所廣泛接受的現(xiàn)實(shí)下，平和竊取說無法取代秘密竊取說成為我國盜竊罪的通說觀點(diǎn)。為了進(jìn)一步維護(hù)和堅(jiān)持秘密竊取說的通說觀點(diǎn)，有必要對(duì)平和竊取說的觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)行批判，對(duì)該學(xué)說對(duì)通說觀點(diǎn)所提出的批判進(jìn)行回應(yīng)和反駁，以對(duì)秘密竊取理論進(jìn)行堅(jiān)守和維護(hù)。 本文主要以對(duì)平和竊取說進(jìn)行較全面的批判，并對(duì)該學(xué)說對(duì)秘密竊取說所提的批判進(jìn)行回應(yīng)和反駁為主要內(nèi)容，進(jìn)而對(duì)秘密竊取說進(jìn)行澄清和維護(hù)。本文主要共分為三個(gè)章節(jié)，各章主要內(nèi)容如下： 第一章主要是對(duì)平和竊取說進(jìn)行介紹，從平和竊取說提出的背景、主要觀點(diǎn)、理論內(nèi)容以及所秉持的理論依據(jù)和實(shí)踐依據(jù)等方面，對(duì)平和竊取說進(jìn)行較詳細(xì)、全面的剖析。 第二章內(nèi)容是對(duì)平和竊取說的批判與反駁。平和竊取說超出國民預(yù)測(cè)可能性，違背刑法罪刑法定的基本原則；未考慮我國刑罰體系設(shè)置的合理性；關(guān)于盜竊罪行為方式的認(rèn)定也不合理；同時(shí)，平和竊取論者在運(yùn)用刑法比較解釋方法進(jìn)行論述時(shí)出現(xiàn)偏差，因此，平和竊取說并不能代替秘密竊取說成為我國盜竊罪的通說觀點(diǎn)。 第三章主要內(nèi)容是通過對(duì)平和竊取說所提批判的回應(yīng)與反駁的方式對(duì)秘密竊取說進(jìn)行澄清和維護(hù)。首先介紹了平和竊取說對(duì)于秘密竊取說的批判，平和竊取說主要從秘密竊取說混淆了主觀要素與客觀要素的區(qū)別、違背了主客觀相一致原則、會(huì)不當(dāng)擴(kuò)大搶劫罪的范圍以及容易導(dǎo)致某些情況下無法確定一些行為的性質(zhì)等方面進(jìn)行了批判。然后，針對(duì)平和竊取說的批判，文章進(jìn)行了有針對(duì)性的回應(yīng)和反批判，指出平和竊取說批判的不合理性，從而為秘密竊取說進(jìn)行正本清源。
[Abstract]:The traditional criminal law theory of our country holds that "secret theft" is the essential feature of objective elements of larceny, and it is also an important symbol for the theft to distinguish other property crimes.However, the general theory does not correctly deal with the relationship between subjective secrecy and objective secrecy when discussing the viewpoint of secret theft, which leads to criticism.Based on the theory of criminal law of Germany and Japan, some scholars put forward the theory of peaceful theft, redefined the crime of larceny, and made a new definition of the boundary between theft and other property crimes.At the same time, the theory of secret theft is comprehensively criticized.However, the theory of peaceful theft exceeds the people's ability to predict, violates the basic principle of the legality of a crime, does not consider the rationality of the setting of our country's penalty system, and at the same time, the theory has its own theoretical defects that cannot be overcome.The criticism of secret theft also lacks sufficient reason and basis.Therefore, in the reality that the secret theft theory is still widely accepted by the criminal law theorists and practitioners and even the broad masses of people in our country, the theory of peaceful theft cannot replace the secret theft theory as the general view of theft in our country.In order to further maintain and adhere to the general viewpoint of secret theft, it is necessary to criticize the viewpoint of peaceful theft, to respond to and refute the criticism put forward by the theory, in order to uphold and maintain the theory of secret theft.The main content of this paper is to criticize the theory of peaceful theft in a comprehensive way, and to respond to and refute the criticism of the theory of secret theft, and then to clarify and maintain the theory of secret theft.This paper is divided into three chapters, the main content of each chapter is as follows:The first chapter mainly introduces the theory of peaceful theft, from the background, the main point of view, the theoretical content, the theoretical basis and the practical basis, etc., to the theory of peace theft in detail, comprehensive analysis.The second chapter is the criticism and refutation of the theory of stealing peace.The theory of peaceful theft exceeds the possibility of national prediction and violates the basic principle of criminal law prescribed by criminal law; it does not take into account the rationality of the setting up of our country's penalty system; the determination of the behavior mode of theft is also unreasonable; at the same time,There is a deviation in the use of comparative interpretation of criminal law. Therefore, the theory of peaceful theft can not replace the theory of secret theft as the general view of theft in our country.The third chapter clarifies and maintains the theory of secret theft by responding to the criticism and refuting it.First of all, it introduces the criticism of the theory of peaceful theft for secret theft, which mainly confuses the difference between subjective and objective elements from secret theft, and violates the principle of consistency between subjectivity and objectivity.The scope of the crime of robbery may be enlarged and the nature of some acts can not be determined under certain circumstances.Then, in view of the criticism of the theory of peaceful theft, the article makes a targeted response and counter-criticism, pointing out the irrationality of the criticism of the theory of peaceful theft, so as to clear the root of the theory of secret theft.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 董玉庭;盜竊罪客觀方面再探[J];吉林大學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2001年03期

，

本文編號(hào)：1753581