【作者】 蔡慧楠；

【导师】 卢有学；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 法律， 2011， 硕士

【副题名】林井泉非法经营赌博机案的法律问题研究

【摘要】 如今,为了丰富人们的文化休闲生活,经营者也在不断地挖空心思增加或者更新自己经营的游戏娱乐项目,但并非所有的游戏娱乐项目都符合国家的相关规定。在保障人们健康安全的进行游戏娱乐的同时,国家限制并禁止了一部分游戏娱乐项目的实施和使用,其中,带有赌博性质的游戏机(也称为赌博机),就在国家明令禁止之列。本文从一个非法经营赌博机的案例入手,通过探讨这种非法经营赌博机的行为性质,研究本案所存在的法律问题,拟对这一非法行为进行刑法规制。本文通过五个部分对林井泉非法经营赌博机案所引出的相关法律问题进行分析:第一部分:案由。林井泉非法经营赌博机案。第二部分:基本案情介绍。林井泉在其经营的电子游戏娱乐场所内非法经营赌博机数十台,并雇佣潘辉凤为其管理经营场所,三个月共非法牟取利益上万余元。第三部分:案件争议焦点。主要介绍林井泉经营赌博机案所引申出得两个争议性问题:第一,经营赌博机的行为构成非法经营罪还是开设赌场罪?第二,赌场的雇佣人员能否构成开设赌场罪的共犯?第四部分:本案争议焦点理论研究。此部分是论文的核心部分,主要针对本案提出的两个争议性问题分别进行具体的分析和探讨,包括对使用赌博机的行为性质定性、对国内外有关经营赌博机的立法规定比较,引出我国经营赌博机非法化的依据、对非法经营赌博机行为的定性以及讨论雇佣人员能否成立开设赌场罪的共犯等问题。根据相关理论并结合本案实际,对文中的争议焦点笔者也作出了自己的判断与评价。第五部分:研究结论。通过对案例和相关理论的具体分析,得出犯罪嫌疑人林井泉构成开设赌场罪,雇佣人员潘辉凤的行为符合开设赌场罪的共犯,也应一并以开设赌场罪追究其刑事责任。此外,通过本文的研究,笔者发现我国目前缺乏对赌博机构成开设赌场罪的全国统一性认定标准,导致实践中类似案件的处理存在明显的地区差异性。因此,希望建立全国统一性的定罪标准,各地再在此基础上作出地方性规定,这样更有利于刑法的统一规范和实施。更多还原

【Abstract】 Now, in order to enrich people’s culture life, the operators are constantly racking their brains to increase or renovate their own game entertainment project. But not all entertainment comply with the relevant provisions of the state. In order to protect people’s health and safety in carrying on these entertainment project, the state limits some implementation in some parts of the entertainment activity, there into, the recreational machines with the gambling character, also known as the gambling machines, these are all in countries banned list. In this paper, from an illegal case of operating gambling machines, through exploring this kind of illegal behavior. try to regulate these behavior.This article through four parts to Lin Jingquan’s illegal gambling machine case leading to analyses the related legal problems:The first section: the cause of the case. Lin Jingquan run slot machine illegally.The second section: basic introduction of the case. Lin Jingquan run slot machine illegally in the electronic game place without legal license. He employed Pan Huifeng to manage and illegally seeked more than 10 thousand RMB.The third section: the controversial focus of the case. Mainly introduce the detail of the case, in which Lin Jingquan run the slot machine illegally, and extend two controversial problems: First, whether the action of running slot machine is The crime of illegal business operations or opening casino crime? Second, whether the employee in the gamble place is a complicity of opening casino crime?The forth section: the theoretical analysis of the controversial focus. This is the core section of this paper. This paper gave detail analysis and discussion separately on the two controversial problems, which mainly contains action judgment of running slot machine in electronic game place without legal license, the action characteristic of using slot machine, the research of illegally running slot machine, the characterization of illegally running slot machine and discussion of whether the employee is a complicity of running slot machine, etc. The author also gave evaluation and judgment of the controversial focus based on the relative theory and the reality of the case. The fifth section: research conclusion. Based on the analysis of the case and the relative theory, this paper conclude that Lin Jingquan constitute of opening casino crime. This paper also conclude that the action of the employee Pan Huifeng coincide with the complicity of opening casino crime, he should be given criminal sanctions of opening casino crime. In addition, through this research, the author found that the current lack of gambling institutions into open gambling house crime of the unified national regulations, practice resulted in similar cases treatment exists obvious regional differences. Therefore, hope to establish unified standard, unified in the country within specified limits for local differences in rules is more consistent with the crime legal principle.更多还原