【作者】 周旋；

【导师】 刘宪权；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 刑法学， 2010， 博士

【副题名】以侵犯财产罪司法适用为中心

【摘要】 侵犯财产罪作为人类最古老却又与时俱进的犯罪,对人类社会生活有着非常重要的影响。就刑事司法实践来说,侵犯财产罪案件仍然是我国刑事犯罪中最主要的类型,占我国刑事一审案件的40%以上。然而,随着社会生活的发展,我国刑法侵犯财产罪章所使用的“公私财物”的措词过于简洁,难以为司法实践提供有效的指引。司法实践因循其自身的发展逻辑展开,寻求就事论事的解决方案,却始终缺乏理论的梳理与型构。因此,论文欲通过梳理司法实践中侵犯财产罪相关司法解释与判例,呈现我国刑法侵犯财产罪之“公私财物”概念的基本内涵。论文首先讨论了侵犯财产罪的司法解释所主张的“公私财物”的内涵,认为尽管侵犯财产罪司法解释并未对侵犯财产罪的“公私财物”概念或称财产概念专门作出解释,但通过对侵犯财产罪相关司法解释的系统分析,可以认为,我国司法当局所主张的侵犯财产罪中“公私财物”的核心内涵为:“公私财物”为他人所有或有权占有的具有经济(交换)价值之物。其中的“物”包括无形物质,如电力、煤气、天然气,但不包括非物质与权利。就权利凭证而言,只有那些在民法上足以被认定为动产(特别动产)的权利凭证被直接纳入公私财物的范围。而非动产权利凭证、信用卡以及长途帐号、电信码号等则可借助于“损失”的概念将之纳入侵犯财产罪规制的范围。而就盗窃、抢劫违禁品(如毒品、淫秽物品、假币)以及盗窃增值税发票,司法当局尽管主张适用盗窃罪、抢劫罪定罪,但同时对将违禁品与增值税发票纳入公私财物的范畴持保留态度。侵犯财产罪司法解释中的“公私财物”概念的整体性解释或许可以描述为“价格+损失”模式。所谓“价格”,即“公私财物”须为可交易之物,相当于我国传统民法理论中的流通物与限制流通物的概念;所谓“损失”,则为经济上可度量的整体财产的损失。论文随后考察了判例援引被视为现行刑法有关公私财物涵义的定义条款的第91条、第92条的情形,发现一方面判例中只有极少数判例援引了刑法第91条、第92条;另一方面上述判例对现行刑法第91条、第92条的援引大多又是似是而非的。因此,本文认为,从判例来看,现行刑法第91条、第92条并不具有规范指引意义。论文最后讨论了侵犯财产罪判例中的“公私财物”之内涵。认为判例中所主张的刑法侵犯财产罪章中“公私财物”的内涵与民法上的财产概念并无实质区别。所谓“公私财物”,应为有经济价值之物,即有价格,狭义上限于流通物,广义上包括存在非法市场价格的违禁品;应为可支配、可控制之物,有形物还是无形物在所不论;应为他人占有或管理之物,狭义为合法占有或管理,广义包括非法的实际占有或管理。大体上,我们也由此可以将“公私财物”称为有经济价值、可控制支配的他人之物。就具体对象而言,司法机关大体上倾向于将无价值之物排除出公私财物的范畴;倾向于将本人财物认定为“公私财物”,但同时主张如客观上不会造成占有人财产的损失,主观上也不具有非法占有的目的,不宜认定本人财物为“公私财物”;就权利凭证,判例大体上将之纳入“财产性利益”处理;对侵犯不记名财产权利凭证大多予以全额认定,无记名证券已成为有价凭证中的独立类别;对记名有价凭证,大体上以行为人实际取得财产性利益、被害人财产遭受实际损失来认定,司法机关的主张与其说认定行为人侵害了记名有价凭证,还不如说侵害了被害人的整体财产;就虚拟财产,尽管司法判例的立场差异较大,但随着《刑法修正案(七)》增订了“非法获取计算机信息系统数据、非法控制计算机信息系统罪”,司法判例的立场或将趋于克制。更多还原

【Abstract】 As one of the most ancient and advanced crimes, property crimes have a great effect on the human life. To the judicial practice, property crimes are still one of the most important crime types in our country, which are over 40% in the criminal cases of the first trial instance. However, as the development of our social life, the word“public and private property”in the chapter of property crimes of Chinese criminal law was so simple that it could not guide the judicial practice efficiently. The judicial practice is developing with its self-logic, and looking for the special solutions for the special cases, but lack of the theoretical formalization and analysis. Conclusively, this paper, based on the review of the relevant judicial interpretations and ruling cases in the property crimes, tried to present the basic features and contents of the concept of”public and private property”in property crimes in our criminal law.Firstly, this paper discussed the contents of the“public and private property”in our judicial interpretations. Although the relevant judicial interpretations didn’t give us the concept of property of property crimes, by analyzing the judicial interpretations, the concept of property could be summarized that the public and private property was something that had economic value and could be owned or occupied, including intangible property such as electricity, gas and natural gas, but excluding non-res and rights. For the documents of title, only those identified as movable property (action in chosen) in the civil law could be included in the scope of public and private property. And non-movable property, credit cards and the telecommunications code could be identified as the object of property crimes by“the concept of loss”. Although judiciary tended to apply the theft or robbery for the act of stealing or robbing the contraband (such as drug, pornographic materials, counterfeit currency) and stealing the special invoices for value-added taxes, they didn’t think that the contraband or the special invoices for value-added taxes were the“public and private property”. The complete definition of the concept of public and private property crimes in judicial interpretations might be generalized as“price + loss”. The price means that the“public and private property”could be exchanged in the market, and the loss means the overall property loss which could be calculated in economic.Secondly, this paper thoroughly analyzed the article 91(public property) and the article 92(citizen’s privately owned property) with judicial cases. On one hand, there were few cases citing the article 91 and the article 92. On the other hand, the citations in those cases were Virtual reality. After that, from these cases, the article 91 and the article 92 could not give regulated guidance to interpret the concept of property in the chapter of property crimes.At last, this paper discussed the content of“public and private property”in property crimes cases, and thought that the content of“public and private property”was same as the concept of property in civil law. The“public and private property”should be something with economic value, that is, something with a price, which narrowly meant circulation of materials, while broadly included contraband with a price in illegal market. It should be the disposable thing whether tangibles or intangibles. It should be something occupied or managed by people, which narrowly meant legal possession, and broadly meant illegal actual possession. In general, the“public and private property”meant res of any other person which is economic and can be controlled.For the object of crimes, the judiciary tended to exclude the non-valuable things from the“public and private property”, and identify the individual property as the“public and private property”. In the meanwhile, if the objective result was that it didn’t cause the occupier’s property loss, and the subjective intention was not the illegal possession, the individual property would not be considered as the“public and private property”. The documents of title were included in the scope of property interest in. most of cases. For the bearer instruments, the whole amount were determined as the criminal amount; for inscribed securities, the criminal amount was determined as property interests what the perpetrator actually obtained and an actual loss of property what the victim suffered. The point of the judiciary was not so much infringing the inscribed securities as offending the whole property of the victim. The ideas about the virtual property of the judiciary were quite different, but the position of judicial precedents might tend to be restraint because the Amendment to the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (VII) added the crimes of“Illegal access to computer information system data”and“illegal control of computer information system”.更多还原