【作者】 毕学柱；

【导师】 张旭；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 法律， 2003， 硕士

【摘要】 挪用资金罪属挪用犯罪，由于世界各国的法律文化和经济制度的不同，各国对挪用犯罪的规定也不尽相同。在我国，自秦朝起就规定了挪用犯罪，而新中国诞生后的第一部刑法典中，却没有此类犯罪的规定，这不能不说是法律上的悲哀。后随着社会的进步与经济的飞速发展，我国的最高司法机关最高人民法院和最高人民检察院在联合下发的司法解释中，才对此类犯罪作了初步的规定，但规定并不详尽，对此类犯罪的追究处罚亦不能穷尽。第二部刑法典中才正式明确地规定了此类犯罪，但存在立法缺陷。具体表现在对挪用资金罪的主体及罪名设置等方面规定上存在语义不清、外延不明，司法实践上常常出现司法不公正的现象，挪用单位物品的行为得不到有效地遏制。笔者希望通过对挪用资金罪的研究，以自己的观点见解引起学术界权威人士对此方面的关注，进而引起立法者的重视，对我国日后立法完善挪用资金罪、打击挪用犯罪起到参考作用。本文主要由以下四个部分组成：第一部分，挪用资金罪的构成要件。这一部分主要由挪用资金罪的主体、挪用资金罪的主观方面的表现形式、挪用资金罪侵犯的客体、挪用资金罪在客观方面的表现形式等四大部分组成。在挪用资金罪的主体中，笔者运用大量的实际材料论证了公司、企业及其他单位成为挪用资金罪的主体的法律依据及表现形式，同时对承包人能否成为本罪的主体作了论述，以此在全文的开端便为立法完善埋下了伏笔。然后在挪用资金罪的主观方面直接剖析了本罪的主观故意为直接故意，即对挪用财产的使用权而非占有权，为接下来的论述挪用资金罪与贪污罪的区别打下<WP=45>基础。在挪用资金罪侵犯的客体中，笔者列举了国内关于挪用资金侵犯客体的四种观点并加以评判，提出挪用资金罪侵犯的应是复杂客体即首先是对财产所有权的侵犯，进而侵犯了国家对财产的经济管理关系，单位财产所有权应包括资金及单位所属的物品，这为单位的物品能否成为挪用犯罪侵犯的对象设下铺垫。在挪用资金罪的客观方面，笔者依据法律的规定，从行为人挪用资金的行为是利用职务上的便利、挪用形似借用但实质上不等于借用，及挪用行为的三种表现形式加以论述，在此节笔者引用了相关司法解释及具体事例，对挪用资金的数额、时间及资金的去向、用途等方面阐述较多，再次明晰了挪用资金罪中关于营利活动及非法活动在立法规定中存在的缺陷，同时响应上文，对单位的物品能否成为挪用的对象作了论述，并阐明了笔者自己的观点，为后面的立法完善中更改罪名埋下伏笔。第二部分，挪用资金罪的认定。这一部分主要由本罪与非罪的界限、挪用资金罪与相关犯罪的界限两部分组成。在本罪与非罪的界限中，笔者从挪用资金的额度及占用时间的长短，论述了挪用资金是否构成犯罪的条件，明确了本罪与非罪的界限。在挪用资金罪与相关犯罪的界限中，笔者运用大量的事实分析了挪用资金罪与挪用公款罪、挪用资金罪与贪污罪的界限，有利于把握挪用资金罪构成的条件，进而将挪用资金罪的特征阐述清楚。第三部分，挪用资金罪的刑罚适用。这一部分主要由挪用资金罪的时间计算问题、挪用资金罪的共犯处罚问题、影响挪用资金罪量刑的情节三部分组成。在挪用资金罪的时间计算问题上，笔者强调论述了在司法实践中比较突出的行为人连续实施挪用行为如何计算时间的问题，笔者以自己的观点回答了司法实践中急需解决的问题。在挪用资金罪的共犯处罚问题上，笔者论述了挪用资金罪的共同犯罪的释义、共犯数额的<WP=46>分配及计算方法、共犯的如何处置，这对如何认定及处罚挪用资金罪的共同犯罪在理论上提供了标准。在影响挪用资金罪量刑的情节中，笔者分别从挪用资金的数额、用途、时间、性质等方面论述了不同性质的挪用决定了量刑的轻重。第四部分，挪用资金罪的立法完善。这一部分主要由应把“挪用资金罪”改为“挪用单位款物罪”、应把“挪用单位资金归个人使用或者借贷给他人”改为“挪用本单位款物归个人或给单位使用”、取消挪用资金的具体用途的规定、将用途问题作为量刑情节、取消挪用资金“未还”的规定、规定财产刑五部分组成。在把“挪用资金罪”改为“挪用单位款物罪”这一部分当中，笔者首先提出刑法典中未规定挪用单位物品的行为应视为犯罪，却在司法实践中屡屡发生，进而列举事例予以佐证，同时对挪用单位物品的社会危害性与挪用资金的社会危害性进行对比，阐述更改罪名的必要性与可行性。在把“挪用单位资金归个人使用或者借贷给他人”改为“挪用本单位款物归个人或给单位使用”这一部分中，笔者提出挪用单位款物归单位使用的与归个人使用的社会危害性相同的，侵害的对象也是相同的，不应将挪用单位款物归单位使用的行为排斥在该犯罪之外的观点，然后列举国内学术界的不同观点并加以评判，进而水到渠成提出笔者自己的观点，认为在立法完善时，应从司法实际出发，增设“为私利给单位使用”的规定，将挪用资金及款物给单位使用的行为也规定为犯罪。在取消挪用资金的具体用途的规定这一部分中，笔者提出在司法实践中，资金被挪用后的用途是五花八门的，而刑法典中关于用途只概括为三种，并对每种情况规定了不同的条件加以限制，这与刑更多还原

【Abstract】 The crime of funds misappropriation belongs to crime of misappropriation. With different legal culture and economic system, the definition of crime of misappropriation is different in every country. In our country, crime of misappropriation has been prescribed since Qin Dynasty, while there are no stipulations for such crime in the first penal code after the establishment of the country. It is a pity in law. Thereafter, with the progress of the society and the rapid development of economics, there are preliminary stipulations for such crime in the combined enforcement explanations of the supreme enforcement organs---the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, but they are not detailed and complete and the punishments for such crime are limited too. The second penal code formally prescribes such crime clearly, but there are defects in legislation: the stipulations of the subject of the crime of funds misappropriation and crime establishment is not verbally clear and their extension is implicit; there is injustice in enforcement practice frequently; the conducts of misappropriating articles in organs cannot be constrained effectively. The author expects to arouse the attention of the authoritative scholars to this aspect and therefore the attention of the legislators through the study on the crime of funds misappropriation and personal views. This can be a reference to the improvement in the legislation of crime of funds misappropriation and the strong measures against crime of misappropriation. The paper consists of four parts as follows:The first part concerns the necessary condition for the component of the crime of funds misappropriation. This part is composed of four sections, the subject the crime of funds misappropriation, the subjective manifestation of the crime, the object of the crime and the objective manifestation of the crime. For the subject of the crime, the author employs a large amount of practical materials to demonstrate the legal foundation and manifestation of companies, enterprises other units as the subject of the crime and expound whether the contractor can be the subject of such crime. This is a foreshadowing of the <WP=49>improvement of legislation at the beginning of the article. In the subjective aspect of the crime, it points out that the subjective intention is direct intention, that is, the rights of use not right of possession of the misappropriate property. This is the foundation of the demonstration of the difference between crime of funds misappropriation and crime embezzlement. For the object of the crime, the author lists four views about it in the country and evaluates them and proposes that the object of the crime is complicated, that is, first the violation of property ownership and then the violation of managerial relation of the country with property. The corporate property ownership includes funds and articles belong to it, which foreshows whether those articles can be the target of the crime.In the objective aspects of the crime, based on legal stipulations, the author expounds that those who misappropriate take advantage of their position; misappropriation is superficially like borrowing but is not in nature and the three manifestations of the conduct of misappropriation. In this section the author quotes relevant enforcement explanations and specific cases. There are many elaborations in the amount of appropriated funds, the time, the whereabouts and use of the funds. It points out the defects in legislation of profitable activities and illegal activities in the crime again and reacts to preceding part, to expound whether unit articles can be the target of misappropriation with the author’s personal ideas. This is a foreshowing of changing names of crime in legislative improvement. The second part is the confirmation of the crime of funds misappropriation. It is composed of two sections, the distinction of original crime and non-crime and that of the crime of funds misappropriation and relevant crimes. For the distinction of original c更多还原