【作者】 路红青；

【导师】 李希慧；

【作者基本信息】 武汉大学 ， 刑法学， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 走私罪是一个古老的罪名,对走私普通货物、物品的行为进行处罚也是古已有之。但中国的各朝各代以及世界各国的规定并不完全相同,走私普通货物、物品犯罪的立法沿革及中外对比对于我们了解走私普通货物、物品罪的变迁和发展趋势有重要意义。本文第一章第一节即是对走私普通货物、物品罪的历史考察,分别论述了中国和外国的走私普通货物、物品罪的立法情况,并对中国古代、近代和新中国成立后的走私普通货物、物品罪的立法情况进行了特点分析,对中外走私普通货物、物品罪的立法情况进行了比较研究。在第二节中,笔者对走私普通货物、物品罪的概念、特征及属性进行了厘清和概括,指出了以往观点对走私普通货物、物品罪概念的片面之处,并结合刑法修正案(七),对走私普通货物、物品罪进行了全面界定。研究刑法罪名离不开犯罪构成要件分析,本文第二章对走私普通货物、物品罪的构成要件进行了重点分析。在犯罪客体方面,笔者从法益侵害说的观点出发,指出以犯罪所侵害的社会关系分析犯罪客体的局限性,结合关税的职能,指出走私普通货物、物品罪的犯罪客体是国家利用关税调节经济权。在犯罪对象的研究上,主要是就实践当中分歧较大的几类对象进行了分析；对于走私普通货物、物品罪的客观方面,笔者主要联系实践当中的案例,结合走私普通货物、物品罪的行为方式进行了介绍；对于走私普通货物、物品罪的犯罪主体,笔者没有面面俱到,而是针对实践当中争议较多的单位犯走私普通货物、物品罪的情形进行研究,重点放在国家机关、一人公司、合伙企业等是否可以构成走私普通货物、物品罪的主体问题上。实践中对于走私普通货物、物品罪能否由间接故意构成争议较大,在走私普通货物、物品罪的主观方面,笔者提出了自己的观点,并对走私普通货物、物品罪主观方面的违法性认识问题、认识错误与概括性故意问题、犯罪目的问题进行了比较研究。走私普通货物、物品罪的罪与非罪、此罪与彼罪问题研究是本文的第三章,首先,笔者对针对普通货物、物品实施的走私违法行为、走私违规行为、走私犯罪行为进行了性质归类,并为其界定划定了标准,还从犯罪数额、目的、情节等方面对走私普通货物、物品罪的罪与非罪进行了界说。在走私普通货物、物品罪的一罪与数罪方面,笔者主要分析了武装掩护走私普通货物、物品问题的一罪与数罪及同时走私多种物品行为的一罪与数罪,认为武装掩护走私行为并不能独立成罪,而同时走私多种物品行为不是想象竞合,而是数罪。对于走私普通货物、物品罪的此罪与彼罪的划分问题,主要分析了走私普通货物、物品罪与放纵走私、受贿罪等经常牵连在一起的罪名的认定问题。本文第四章是关于走私普通货物、物品罪的犯罪形态认定问题。实践中与理论界至今仍存在走私普通货物、物品罪是否存在未遂形态的争论,笔者认为,虽然走私普通货物、物品罪是数额犯,但也是一种过程犯,仍然存在犯罪未遂。针对以往主要是对通关走私行为进行研究并笼统界定走私普通货物、物品罪未遂标准的弊端,笔者认为,走私普通货物、物品罪的不同行为方式,认定未遂的标准是不同的。结合走私普通货物、物品罪的行为方式,分通关走私、绕关走私、后续走私、间接走私四种类别,分别提出了申报说,到达国境线说,起运说、申请核销说与区别说,而对于走私普通货物、物品罪的既遂标准,也是从以上四种类别出发,分别提出了放行说、跨越关境说、交付说与区别说。本文第五章是关于走私普通货物、物品罪的共同犯罪认定问题。针对司法解释规定单位犯走私普通货物、物品罪与个人犯走私普通货物、物品罪的起刑点不同问题,笔者提出了自己的质疑,并从立法原义与实践困境方面阐明了理由。对于走私普通货物、物品罪的共同犯罪故意,笔者主要分析了“通谋”及犯意的认定问题。本章的重点在于对走私普通货物、物品犯罪几类特殊共犯的认定与处理上,笔者主要阐释了“看水族”、海上运输走私、包税走私及单纯买卖涉税票证走私行为处罚的理论基础与难点分析,建议对于“看水族”以窝藏罪处理,对于海上运输走私应适当扩大处罚对象的范围,对于包税走私的间接故意认定应立足于案件事实考察,对于单纯买卖涉税票证以买卖国家机关公文、证件、印章罪定罪处罚。走私普通货物、物品罪的刑事责任认定方面也存在颇多问题。在本文的第六章中,笔者首先分析了立法以偷逃应缴税款作为走私普通货物、物品罪量刑依据的弊端并提出应适当考虑情节因素,然后针对走私普通货物、物品罪的刑种、量刑幅度设置及最高刑设置的不合理之处提出了改进意见。对于立法规定的“多次走私未经处理”的理解问题明确了其应然含义,并提出为了惩治蚂蚁搬家类走私,对经两次行政处理后又走私的,对行为人也应以走私普通货物、物品罪定罪处罚。对于涉案财物的处理,现行刑法的规定是有疏漏的,也导致了实践当中作法不一。笔者提出对于走私普通货物、物品罪所涉财物,不能简单的一律没收,必须区分行为方式,考察行为人的偷逃应缴税额来决定没收的范围和数额。更多还原

【Abstract】 The crime of smuggling is an ancient criminal charge, the punishment to the behavior of smuggling common goods or articles is also a thou to there has been it. The provision between each on behalf in china and international community is incompletely same alike. The research and the contrast of the legislation of crime of smuggling common goods or articles in china and in abroad is very important to understand the development of crime of smuggling common goods or articles. In the first paragraph of chapter 1, I introduce the legislation and analyze the characteristics of crime of smuggling common goods or articles in china and in abroad. In the second paragraph of chapter 1, I clarify and generalize the concept, the characteristic and the ownership of crime of smuggling common goods or articles. I point out the unilateral place in the former standpoint to the concept of crime of smuggling common goods or articles. I definite completely the concept of crime of smuggling of common goods or articles combining the provision in the penal code revision bill Seven.Studying the single crime can not get away from the constituent elements. I study the constituent elements of crime of smuggling common goods or articles in the chapter 2.From the beginning of the theory of violating legal interests; I point the localization of using the theory of violating the society relation to analyze the object of crime of smuggling common goods or articles. Relating to the function of tariff, I think the object of crime of smuggling common goods or articles is the power to make use of the tariff to regulate the national economy. I analyze the main objective of crime of smuggling common goods or articles which is on the disputed. On the objective elements of crime of smuggling common goods or articles, I introduce the action type according to some true case. I do not study comprehensively on the body of crime of smuggling of common goods or articles, but put the point at the disputed unit such as National organization, one person company, partnership business enterprise. In the practice it is disputed to smuggling of common goods or articles indirect intentionally. I point out my own standpoint. At last, I make a comparison among the cognition to the illegality, mistake cognition, general intention and the subjective purpose.In the chapter 3,I discuss the problems about establishment of crime of smuggling common goods or articles and distinction between crime of smuggling common goods or articles and some similar crimes. I distinct the behavior of smuggling which is breaking the law, violating the rules or criminal offence. And then, I study the problems about establishment of crime of smuggling common goods or articles according to the quantity of evasion-customs, criminal purpose, and criminal details. I think the behavior of covering the crime of smuggling common goods or articles with arms is one crime, but not two crimes. While, the behavior of smuggling some kinds of goods and articless is some crimes, but not one crime. To the distinction between crime of smuggling common goods or articles and the similar crimes, I discuss the crime of smuggling common goods or articles, the crime of indulgencing smuggling and the crime of bribe.I study the incomplete patterns of crime of smuggling of common goods or articles in the chapter 4. In the practice and the theory realm, it is in the dispute that the crime of smuggling common goods or articles has incomplete patterns or not. I think that the crime of smuggling common goods or articles has the incomplete patterns, because it is the crime including quantity, and it is the crime which reflects a process. The scholar study mainly the smuggling cross the custom, and distinct the standard of the incomplete patterns generally. I think that the different kind of the smuggling way has the different standard of incomplete patterns. The way of the crime of smuggling common goods or articles is smuggling cross the custom, smuggling round the custom, smuggling after crossing the custom and smuggling indirectly, so I claim the standard of declaring, the standard of reaching the national territorial line, the standard of transporting or applying cancellation, the standard of respective theory. At the same time, I claim the standard of approving pass, the standard of stepping over the national territorial line, the standard of condign, the standard of respective theory as the standard to affirm the complete patterns of the crime of smuggling common goods or articles.I research on the joint crime of smuggling common goods or articles in the chapter 5. I query the point to punishment is different to the natural body and the unit body who behave smuggling. To the joint criminal intent of crime of smuggling common goods or articles, I emphasize the problems of collusion and the criminal intent. It is the main point the judgment and solution to the special joint crime. I analyze the theoretic foundation and the difficult problems to punish the person who sending the message for the criminal, the person smuggle on the sea, the deputy who smuggles and the person who engages in the business of custom notes. I suggest punish the person who sending the message for the criminal as the crime of hiding the offense, punish the person smuggle on the sea by extending the scope of subjective. We should judge the indirect intent of the deputy who smuggle on the base of the fact. We can punish the person who engages in the business of custom notes as the crime of saling the official document.There are many problems on the criminal obligation of crime of smuggling common goods or articles. I discuss the shortcoming to punish the criminal on the base of the quantity of evasion-customs. Then I point out that we should punish the criminal on the base of the criminal details. To the unreasonable legislation of the penalty category, penalty range, the most serious penalty to the crime of smuggling common goods or articles, I point out the suggestion to improvement. I definite the meaning of "smuggle many times but not solved" in the legislation. I think we should punish the person whose behavior has been solved administratively twice but he smuggles again. It is imperfect to the solutions to the properties involving the case in the legislation. I think we should not confiscate the properties involving the case of smuggling simply, on the contrary, we should judge the range and the quantity of the confiscated properties on the criminal details and the quantity of evasion-customs.更多还原