本文選題：法益 + 財產(chǎn)犯罪�。� 參考：《蘇州大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：法益作為大陸法系刑法理論中的概念，相較于我國的“犯罪客體”而言更具合理性。正確構(gòu)造財產(chǎn)罪法益，可以合理確定財產(chǎn)罪的刑罰處罰范圍，解決現(xiàn)實(shí)生活中關(guān)于侵犯財產(chǎn)行為的司法實(shí)踐難題，使得不同的行為得到公正合理的評價。我國的財產(chǎn)罪法益學(xué)說主要有所有權(quán)說、占有說和中間說。國外對于財產(chǎn)罪法益的研究較為深入，德國刑法學(xué)界對財產(chǎn)罪法益的問題通過法律的財產(chǎn)說、經(jīng)濟(jì)的財產(chǎn)說、法律的經(jīng)濟(jì)的財產(chǎn)說的爭論展開；日本刑法學(xué)界存在本權(quán)說、占有說和各種中間學(xué)說。由于占有說不當(dāng)擴(kuò)大了對侵財行為的刑罰處罰范圍，，而所有權(quán)說或本權(quán)說縮小了刑罰處罰范圍，因此本文提出修正的“占有說”。本文認(rèn)為，財產(chǎn)罪的法益原則上是占有，但相對于所有權(quán)人或其他本權(quán)人取回財物的行為而言，該種占有不是財產(chǎn)罪的法益。修正的“占有說”在刑法理論體系中能夠得到合理的解釋，且與我國刑事法律規(guī)定相符合。在司法實(shí)踐中，最高人民法院編排的判例原則上體現(xiàn)出與修正的“占有說”相同的傾向，只是在非法占有目的這一問題上，最高院的觀點(diǎn)違背了刑法理論而不為修正的“占有說”所取。
[Abstract]:As a concept in the theory of criminal law in continental law system, legal interest is more reasonable than the object of crime in our country. The correct construction of legal interests of property crime can reasonably determine the scope of punishment of property crime, solve the problem of judicial practice of infringing property in real life, and make different acts get fair and reasonable evaluation. The theory of legal interests of property crime in our country mainly includes ownership theory, possession theory and intermediate theory. The research on legal interest of property crime abroad is more in-depth. The legal interests of property crime in Germany are discussed through the property theory of law, the property theory of economy, the property theory of economy of law, and the theory of right of law in the field of criminal law in Japan. Possessive theory and various intermediate doctrines. Because the misrepresentation of possession expands the scope of punishment for pecuniary invasion, and the theory of ownership or this right narrows the scope of punishment, this paper puts forward a revised theory of "possession". This paper holds that the legal interest of the property crime is possession in principle, but the possession is not the legal interest of the property crime compared with the property recovery by the owner or other persons. The revised "possession theory" can be reasonably interpreted in the criminal law theory system and is in accordance with the criminal law in our country. In judicial practice, the judicial precedent arranged by the Supreme people's Court embodies in principle the same tendency as the amended "possession theory", but only on the issue of the purpose of illegal possession. The Supreme Court's view runs counter to criminal law theory and is not taken for the revised possession theory.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：蘇州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D914

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 童偉華;;財產(chǎn)罪的法益——修正的“所有權(quán)說”之提倡[J];安徽大學(xué)法律評論;2009年01期

2 沈志民;;對盜竊在他人保管之下的本人財物行為的刑法評價[J];北方法學(xué);2012年02期

3 于志剛;郭旭強(qiáng);;財產(chǎn)罪法益中所有權(quán)說與占有說之對抗與選擇[J];法學(xué);2010年08期

4 何榮功;;財產(chǎn)罪法益新論[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;2012年01期

5 徐光華;;“非法占有”應(yīng)當(dāng)成為刑法保護(hù)的對象[J];廣州市公安管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2010年02期

6 尹婕;;論財產(chǎn)罪的保護(hù)法益——本權(quán)說與占有說的沖突[J];廣西政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2012年01期

7 馮春萍;張紅昌;;財產(chǎn)罪的保護(hù)法益探究[J];法學(xué)雜志;2012年12期

8 孫建山;;對刑法上占有的理解與占有說之提倡[J];濮陽職業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報;2012年01期

9 張明楷;騙取自己所有但由他人合法占有的財物構(gòu)成詐騙罪——對《偽造公章取走暫扣車輛是否構(gòu)成詐騙罪》一文結(jié)論的肯定[J];人民檢察;2004年10期

10 黎宏;;論財產(chǎn)犯罪的保護(hù)法益[J];人民檢察;2008年23期

本文編號：1876694