發(fā)布時間：2018-06-12 23:25

  本文選題：侵占罪 + 代為保管　； 參考：《南京師范大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：我國1997年《刑法》第270條規(guī)定,侵占罪的對象包括代為保管的他人財物、遺忘物和埋藏物。由于該法條表述較為簡單,且與民法制度具有天然的緊密聯(lián)系,刑法理論界對侵占罪的認識和理解一直存在很多爭議,司法上也出現(xiàn)了適用混亂現(xiàn)象。針對于此,本文以現(xiàn)有理論成果為依托,以“代為保管的他人財物”為研究對象,通過對侵占罪的理論構(gòu)成和實務(wù)中的疑難問題的探討,認為“代為保管的他人財物”具有廣闊的解釋空間,可涵蓋侵占罪的所有犯罪對象。首先,“代為保管”是一種行為人基于一定的原因保管他人財物的狀態(tài),并不限于委托信任關(guān)系。這種原因既可以是法律上的,也可以是事實上的。其次,在一些特殊情形下侵占罪和盜竊罪往往難以區(qū)分,如輔助占有問題和侵吞存款問題。“代為保管”的認定是兩罪區(qū)分的關(guān)鍵因素,因為“代為保管”的表述比“占有”的表述更能明確反映侵占罪的本質(zhì)和保護法益。再次,侵占罪由于其犯罪性質(zhì)以及犯罪手段的特殊性,極易和民法發(fā)生交叉、牽連關(guān)系。民法上的不當(dāng)?shù)美�與無因管理皆可成為侵占行為的依據(jù),不法原因給付則應(yīng)區(qū)分為不法原因委托和狹義上的不法原因給付,前者因侵占罪的犯罪對象不限于合法財物且所有權(quán)未轉(zhuǎn)移,可以構(gòu)成侵占罪;后者因財物所有權(quán)已發(fā)生事實意義上的轉(zhuǎn)移而不能構(gòu)成侵占罪。最后,“代為保管的他人財物”可以涵蓋“遺忘物”和“埋藏物”,《刑法》第270條第2款是第1款的注意性規(guī)定,二者并非并列關(guān)系。
[Abstract]:Article 270 of the Criminal Law of 1997 stipulates that the object of the crime of embezzlement includes the property of others, forgotten objects and buried objects which are kept on behalf of others. Because the expression of this article is relatively simple and has a natural close relation with the civil law system, there have been many disputes about the understanding and understanding of the crime of embezzlement in the theoretical circle of criminal law, and there has also been a phenomenon of confusion in judicial application. In view of this, based on the existing theoretical results, this paper takes "other people's property in custody on behalf" as the research object, through the discussion of the theoretical composition and the difficult problems in the practice of the crime of embezzlement. It is considered that "other persons' property in custody" has broad interpretation space and can cover all the criminal objects of the crime of embezzlement. Firstly, "custody on behalf" is a state in which the perpetrator keeps other people's property for certain reasons, and is not limited to the trust relationship. This can be both de jure and de facto. Secondly, it is difficult to distinguish the crime of embezzlement from the crime of theft under some special circumstances, such as the problem of auxiliary possession and the problem of embezzlement. The identification of "custody on behalf" is the key factor in the distinction between the two crimes, because the expression of "custody on behalf" can clearly reflect the essence of the crime of embezzlement and the interests of the law of protection than the expression of "possession". Thirdly, the crime of embezzlement is easy to cross and implicate with civil law because of its criminal nature and the particularity of criminal means. The improper enrichment and non-cause management in civil law can become the basis of encroachment. The illegal reason pay should be divided into the illegal reason entrustment and the narrow sense illegal reason pay. The former is not limited to the object of the crime of embezzlement and the ownership is not transferred, the latter can not constitute the crime of embezzlement because the ownership of the property has been transferred in the sense of fact. Finally, "other people's property in custody" can cover "forgotten objects" and "buried objects". Article 270, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Law is the attention requirement of paragraph 1, which is not a parallel relationship.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D924.3

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李永軍;李偉平;;論不法原因給付的制度構(gòu)造[J];政治與法律;2016年10期

2 王鋼;;不法原因給付與侵占罪[J];中外法學(xué);2016年04期

3 劉圃君;;無因管理與侵占罪交叉問題研究[J];上海政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(法治論叢);2016年04期

4 梁云寶;;財產(chǎn)罪占有之立場:緩和的事實性占有概念[J];中國法學(xué);2016年03期

5 袁國何;;錯誤匯款的占有歸屬及其定性[J];政法論壇;2016年02期

6 張淞淪;;遺失物的財產(chǎn)權(quán)結(jié)構(gòu)——重新反思梁麗案件[J];政法論壇;2016年01期

7 張雅輝;;區(qū)分盜竊罪與普通侵占罪之難點探析[J];人民司法(案例);2016年02期

8 馬寅翔;;占有概念的規(guī)范本質(zhì)及其展開[J];中外法學(xué);2015年03期

9 車浩;;占有不是財產(chǎn)犯罪的法益[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報);2015年03期

10 陳璇;;論侵占罪處罰漏洞之填補[J];法商研究;2015年01期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 羅桂萍;不法原因給付與侵占罪、詐騙罪[D];清華大學(xué);2015年

2 賈園園;論侵占罪中的“代為保管”[D];西南政法大學(xué);2015年

，

本文編號：2011507