【作者】 谢晖；

【导师】 林亚刚；

【作者基本信息】 武汉大学 ， 法律， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 侵占罪是我国1997年刑法增设的新罪名，该罪的增设弥补了我国原有刑事立法中对于侵占行为规定的不足，使我国的刑事立法更加趋于完善、科学，为司法机关惩治侵占型犯罪行为提供了新的法律依据，从而加强了对我国公私财产的所有权保护，具有十分重大的意义。但由于我国对侵占行为的立法经验不足，加之法律条文的高度概括性，使得侵占罪的设立存有缺陷，在理论界引起的争议较大，加大了司法实践中的操作难度。近几年来，众多学者对侵占罪的研究从浅到深、从表到里，对于一些争议问题逐步形成了共识。如，侵占罪的客体是公私财产所有权，侵占的对象有动产、不动产、有形物、无形物、合法物、违法物等，侵占罪的主体是一般主体。但还有一些问题仍存在较大分歧，如，代为保管的范围，遗忘物与遗失物是否同一，拒不返还与拒不交出的时间界限等理论问题，以及司法实践中的一些疑难复杂案件的罪与非罪、此罪与彼罪的认定问题。笔者认为，学者在这些问题上的分歧，归根于一个根本问题的认识，即刑法介入侵占罪的理由和程度，如何区分侵占行为在民法上与刑法上的界限，刑法对侵占行为的介入是扩大还是限制，学者们对这个问题的不同取向，决定了对侵占罪的不同理解。笔者认为，对侵占罪的立法和解释应采用刑法谦抑性原则，不能过分扩大刑法对本属于民法范围内解决的问题的干涉，让民法和刑法在保护财产所有权上各司其职。如，代为保管应仅限于基于信任委托关系产生的保管行为，对于借用关系、租赁关系、担保关系、无因管理、不当得利而形成的对他人财物的侵占行为，由民事手段解决。遗忘物和遗失物的概念不易把握，对二者在刑法上应做原则区分。拒不返还或拒不交出的时间界限应结合侵占罪的立法意图来确定，即视不同案件而限定，对于需要侦查的案件，以侦查人员抓获行为人时其是否拒不返还或交出财物为最后时间限制；对于不需要侦查的案件，以财物所有人或占有人向人民法院告诉时，行为人是否退还或交出财物为最后时间限制。该罪的诉讼形式是自诉为主，公诉为辅，当侵占的对象为无主物或所有权归属不明之物时，没有具体的受害人，由人民检察院行使告诉权，能更好的保护公私财产所有权。关于一些犯罪行为是属于侵占罪还是属于盗窃罪，关键是看行为人在非法占有财物前，对该财物是否具有合法持有的前提。总之，本文基于这些认识并在众多学者和司法工作者探讨的基础上从侵占罪的概念、构成特征、认定、立法缺陷与完善四个方面做了全面的分析和论证。 全文主体共分四部分，每个部分的概要如下: 第一部分:侵占罪的概念。对有关侵占罪概念的各种不同表述进行了分析比较，明确了侵占罪的概念。 第二部分:侵占罪的犯罪构成。侵占罪的犯罪构成是本文的核心所在。通过对侵占罪的犯罪构成进行详尽的分析研究，指出侵占罪的客体为他人的财物所有权，犯罪对象为代为保管的他人财物和他人的遗忘物或埋藏物，遗忘物不同于埋藏物。就侵占罪客观方面而言，包含变合法持有为非法占有，拒不退还或拒不交出，数额较大三个要件。其主观方面为故意，并且具有非法占有的目的。侵占罪的主体为一般主体。 第三部分:侵占罪的具体认定。具体论述了侵占罪的既遂、未遂问题，侵占罪的罪与非罪的界限，侵占罪与相关犯罪的界限。 第四部分:侵占罪的立法缺陷和完善建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 Crime of embezzlement was supplemented into our criminal law in 1997,it improves regulations on embezzlement in our former legislation and makes our criminal legislation more perfect and scientific. It makes great sense that this supplement provides new legal evidence for the judicial organs to punish crimes of embezzlement, and reinforce the protection of ownerships of punish and private properties. However, due to our inadequate legislation experience of embezzlement as well as the succinct generality of legal articles, three are still limitations about establishment of crime of embezzlement, which results in great disputes in the academic circle , making its operations more difficult in the judicial practice. In recent years, many scholars come to reach common understanding on a few problems after study crime of embezzlement from simplicity to profundity, from the apparent to the deep. For example, he object of embezzlement is the ownership of public and private properties, which include chattels, immovable, tangible items, intangible items, legal items and illegal items, etc. the subjects of embezzlement is the general subject of crime. But there are still great differences in some theoretical problems, such as ranges in commendam, indecisive consistency between oblivious property and lost one, the time limit of refusal to return or refusal to hand in, litigant forms, and in judicial practice, cognizance of non-crime, this-crime, that-crime and levels about criminal ones of embezzlement, whether the criminal intervention in embezzlement should be extended or limited, scholars’ different decisions towards these two problems lead to different understanding towards embezzlement. In the light of the author, the legislation and explanation of embezzlement should adopt the principle of criminal law allowance. The criminal intervention in problems which should be solved in terms of civil laws should not be excessively enlarged, and civil laws and criminal laws should be made to play their respective roles in the protection of ownership of public and private properties. For examples, "in commendam" should be limited in custodial behaviors which are produced by clientage based on trust; as for borrower relationships, leaseholdrelationships, guarantee relationships, spontaneous agency and unjust enrichment, the embezzlement in others’ properties have different meanings, restrict divisions towards them aren’t made in criminal laws because the judicial operations bear too thick subjectivity, which is hard to grasp. The time limit of refusal to return or refusal to hand in should be decided considering legislative intentions of embezzlement, that is, it is decided according to different cases. For cases which need reconnaissance, the final time limit should be the moment when property owners or occupants sue the doer who have returned or handed in properties or not at the people’s court. Litigant forms of embezzlement should give priority to private prosecutions, then public prosecution. If there’s no specific victim of embezzlement, the lawsuit is conducted by the people’s court to protect the public and private property to a great extent .the key to define some criminal activity as embezzlement or theft case is to see if the doer has legal right to the property before he possesses the property illegally.In one word, this article analyzes and proves the crime of embezzlement on its legislation background, advantage and disadvantage, concept, features, cognizance, punishment and legislation perfection, based on the understanding above and basis of many scholars and law officers’ research.This essay is divided into four parts, which are expounded as the following approximately 30 thousand words.Part one: concept of the crime of embezzlement.Part two: constitution of the crime of embezzlement .in this part, a brief introduction is first made on the legislation of the crime both at home and abroad, then I expound the necessity of establishing the crime of embezzlement in the criminal law of our country. After that,更多还原