論盜竊數(shù)額的認(rèn)定
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2019-01-21 20:58
【摘要】：伴隨著私有制的出現(xiàn),盜竊罪也隨之產(chǎn)生,它是司法實(shí)踐中最古老和常見的犯罪形式之一。時(shí)代在進(jìn)步,社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)在發(fā)展,而形式多樣、手段特殊的盜竊犯罪案件也在不斷出現(xiàn)。但無論盜竊的手法如何翻新,花樣如何變化,其侵財(cái)犯罪的本質(zhì)不會(huì)變,因此盜竊數(shù)額就必然成為評(píng)價(jià)其危害性及量刑的要件。我國(guó)《刑法》第264條以及最高人民法院、最高人民檢察院《關(guān)于審理盜竊案件具體應(yīng)用法律若干問題的解釋》的規(guī)定均直接涉及數(shù)額問題,由此可見數(shù)額在盜竊罪的認(rèn)定中具有重要的作用。筆者結(jié)合五年來的實(shí)際檢察工作經(jīng)驗(yàn),針對(duì)現(xiàn)行相關(guān)法律在司法實(shí)踐中對(duì)盜竊數(shù)額認(rèn)定的存在的爭(zhēng)議和問題進(jìn)行了論述。本文第一部分列舉了作者五年實(shí)際工作中的盜竊數(shù)額認(rèn)定的三個(gè)”非典型”案例,這一部分主要通過”非典型”案例逐一列出案例中的司法爭(zhēng)議,即：一是在主觀客觀不能統(tǒng)一,行為人實(shí)際竊取的財(cái)物價(jià)值與主觀認(rèn)識(shí)到的財(cái)物價(jià)值不符時(shí),如何認(rèn)定盜竊的數(shù)額；二是盜竊難以確定價(jià)格的物品時(shí),如何認(rèn)定盜竊數(shù)額；三是盜竊虛擬財(cái)物時(shí),盜竊數(shù)額如何認(rèn)定。作者對(duì)三個(gè)案例進(jìn)行了詳細(xì)的評(píng)析,并針對(duì)此部分提出的“三種特殊情況”在第三章給予相應(yīng)的建議。本文第二章系統(tǒng)的論述了我國(guó)在盜竊數(shù)額認(rèn)定立法上的沿革。分別對(duì)古代在盜竊數(shù)額認(rèn)定立法的三次歷史性飛躍進(jìn)行介紹品析,并就現(xiàn)行法律對(duì)盜竊數(shù)額認(rèn)定的相關(guān)問題的沿革和爭(zhēng)議進(jìn)行細(xì)要闡述。本文第三章是理論和實(shí)踐結(jié)合的升華部分,其主要內(nèi)容是現(xiàn)行法律框架內(nèi)對(duì)完善盜竊數(shù)額認(rèn)定的建議。作者針對(duì)第一章中實(shí)際案例存在的爭(zhēng)議,對(duì)現(xiàn)行法律中提出司法操作上的建議,提出解決對(duì)策。文章依據(jù)實(shí)際工作案例和所學(xué)習(xí)研究討論的相關(guān)知識(shí)進(jìn)行理論分析,得出結(jié)論。論文最后部分總結(jié)全文,并給予了檢察工作人員對(duì)立法嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)臒o限期望。
[Abstract]:With the appearance of private ownership, larceny comes into being, which is one of the oldest and most common forms of crime in judicial practice. The times are progressing, the social economy is developing, and the crime of theft with various forms and special means is also emerging. However, no matter how the method of theft is renovated and how the pattern changes, the nature of the crime of invading money will not change, so the amount of theft will inevitably become an important element to evaluate its harmfulness and sentencing. Article 264 of the Criminal Law of our country and the provisions of the Supreme people's Court and the Supreme people's Procuratorate on the interpretation of certain issues concerning the specific application of the law in handling cases of theft are all directly related to the question of the amount of money. This shows that the amount of theft in the determination of an important role. Combined with five years' practical experience in procuratorial work, the author discusses the disputes and problems existing in the judicial practice of the current relevant laws on the determination of the amount of theft. The first part of this paper lists three "atypical" cases in which the author has identified the amount of theft in his five years' actual work. This part mainly lists the judicial disputes in the cases one by one through "atypical" cases. That is: first, how to determine the amount of theft when the subjective objective can not be unified and the actual value of the property stolen by the actor does not match the subjective value of the property; The second is how to determine the amount of theft when it is difficult to determine the price of goods, and the third is how to determine the amount of theft when stealing virtual property. The author makes a detailed analysis of the three cases, and gives the corresponding suggestions in Chapter 3 for the "three special cases" proposed in this part. The second chapter systematically discusses the evolution of the legislation of the amount of theft in China. This paper introduces and analyzes three historical leaps in the legislation of the amount of theft in ancient times, and expounds the evolution and controversy of the existing laws on the determination of the amount of theft. The third chapter is the sublimation part of the combination of theory and practice, the main content of which is the suggestion of perfecting the amount of theft within the current legal framework. In view of the disputes in the actual cases in the first chapter, the author puts forward some suggestions on the judicial operation in the current law and puts forward some countermeasures. According to the actual work cases and the relevant knowledge of the study and discussion, the paper makes a theoretical analysis and draws a conclusion. The last part of the paper summarizes the full text, and gives the procuratorial staff the unlimited expectation of strict legislation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：黑龍江大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3
本文編號(hào)：2413034
[Abstract]:With the appearance of private ownership, larceny comes into being, which is one of the oldest and most common forms of crime in judicial practice. The times are progressing, the social economy is developing, and the crime of theft with various forms and special means is also emerging. However, no matter how the method of theft is renovated and how the pattern changes, the nature of the crime of invading money will not change, so the amount of theft will inevitably become an important element to evaluate its harmfulness and sentencing. Article 264 of the Criminal Law of our country and the provisions of the Supreme people's Court and the Supreme people's Procuratorate on the interpretation of certain issues concerning the specific application of the law in handling cases of theft are all directly related to the question of the amount of money. This shows that the amount of theft in the determination of an important role. Combined with five years' practical experience in procuratorial work, the author discusses the disputes and problems existing in the judicial practice of the current relevant laws on the determination of the amount of theft. The first part of this paper lists three "atypical" cases in which the author has identified the amount of theft in his five years' actual work. This part mainly lists the judicial disputes in the cases one by one through "atypical" cases. That is: first, how to determine the amount of theft when the subjective objective can not be unified and the actual value of the property stolen by the actor does not match the subjective value of the property; The second is how to determine the amount of theft when it is difficult to determine the price of goods, and the third is how to determine the amount of theft when stealing virtual property. The author makes a detailed analysis of the three cases, and gives the corresponding suggestions in Chapter 3 for the "three special cases" proposed in this part. The second chapter systematically discusses the evolution of the legislation of the amount of theft in China. This paper introduces and analyzes three historical leaps in the legislation of the amount of theft in ancient times, and expounds the evolution and controversy of the existing laws on the determination of the amount of theft. The third chapter is the sublimation part of the combination of theory and practice, the main content of which is the suggestion of perfecting the amount of theft within the current legal framework. In view of the disputes in the actual cases in the first chapter, the author puts forward some suggestions on the judicial operation in the current law and puts forward some countermeasures. According to the actual work cases and the relevant knowledge of the study and discussion, the paper makes a theoretical analysis and draws a conclusion. The last part of the paper summarizes the full text, and gives the procuratorial staff the unlimited expectation of strict legislation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：黑龍江大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3
【相似文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條
1 白星星;馬榮春;;共犯的共犯初論[J];政法學(xué)刊;2014年03期
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條
1 陳政豪;盜竊罪的數(shù)額研究[D];廣東財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2015年
2 石睿;論盜竊數(shù)額的認(rèn)定[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2014年
，本文編號(hào)：2413034
本文鏈接：http://www.sikaile.net/falvlunwen/xingfalunwen/2413034.html
教材專著
