【作者】 莫传明；

【导师】 林亚刚；

【作者基本信息】 武汉大学 ， 刑法学， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 侵占罪的立法，虽对国外的有关立法有所借鉴，但其内容大不相同，体现了刑法轻罪化处理的理念，反映了我国侵占罪立法的特有旨趣，具有自己的鲜明特色。但作为新刑法中增设的新罪名，学术界自立法以来对之争议却未停止过。为加强对此类犯罪的预防和惩治，本文根据刑法规定，结合司法实践，对侵占罪进行了全面的探讨。 全文分为五部分，下面对本文几个部分的内容分别加以概述。 第一部分：侵占罪概述。首先介绍了国内外有关侵占罪的立法概况，其次，对中外的立法进行了比较，最后，就国内有关侵占罪概念的各种不同表述方式进行比较分析，明确了侵占罪的概念。 第二部分：侵占罪的犯罪构成，这是本文的核心所在。通过对侵占罪的犯罪构成进行分析研究，指出侵占罪的客体为他人财物所有权，并详尽的对其犯罪对象作出全面的剖析，阐明了代管物的范围，遗忘物不同遗失物。就侵占罪客观方面而言，将其区分为拒不退还代管物的侵占类型和拒不交出遗忘物埋藏物的侵占类型两大类进行分析，便于对本罪有更清晰的理解。主观方面，说明出于非法占有的目的，并对其表现为故意的构成要素进行着重探讨。探讨了侵占罪的主体范围及是否可由单位构成。 第三部分：关于侵占罪的认定问题。具体论述了侵占罪与相关犯罪的界限以及有关侵占罪的既遂、未遂问题。 第四部分：侵占罪的告诉和处罚问题。首先对侵占罪的告诉问题进行了探讨，指出了其中的立法缺陷。然后对如何具体适用法律进行量刑处罚做了详细论述。 第五部分：完善侵占罪的立法思考。首先对侵占罪的利弊价值进行了分析，其次，针对侵占罪立法中存在的缺陷，提出了若干建议：(1)明确他人财物的范畴；(2)扩大侵占罪的对象；(3)区别侵占不同对象行为的法定刑；(4)对“数额较大”规定的认定；(5)增设对侵占公共财产的除外规定。更多还原

【Abstract】 The legislating of the Crime of Embezzlement uses the overseas related legislation for reference, but has many difference in the content. It reflects the theory of minor offence and the peculiar purport of the Crime of Embezzlement of our country. It has its own distinctive flavour. But as a new charge in the new Criminal Law, the Crime of Embezzlement has given rise to many controversies in the academic circles. According to the Criminal Law and the legal practice, this essay makes a tentative study on the crime so as to prevent and punish such acts.This essay is divided into the following 5 parts with introduction of each.Part One: Outline 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 compare the legislation of other countries. After that, I clearly defines the conception of the Crime of Embezzlement by comparing and analyzing different ways to express the conception of the crime.Part Two: The core of this essay -constitution of the Crime of Embezzlement. By studying and analyzing the constitution of the Crime of Embezzlement, I indicate that the object is the ownership of other’s properties, and make a thorough analysis of the object, expounding the scope of the storaged objects (the objects another person has forgotten about is different form objects another person has lost).As for its objective aspect, I make a distinction between the two acts and analyse them: refusing to return the storaged objects and refusing to hand over the forgotten or buried objects, so that it can be more clear and easier to understand. As for the subjective aspect, I explain the purpose of illegal possession. Approach its essential factor which seems to be intentional. I probe into the scope of its subject and the question whether the crime can be committed by an organization.Part Three: Questions on Cognizing the crime. This part mainly deals with the dividing lines between the crime of Embezzlement and some relevant crimes, andquestions on accomplished offence and attempt of the crime.Part Four: Questions on complaint and punishing the crime. In this part, I probe into the question of complaint, and indicate the deficiencies in legislation on the crime, then I make a detailed exposition on how to use laws to punish the crime.Part Five: Suggestions on perfecting in legislation. First, I analyse the value of the advantages and disadvantages of the crime. Then I put forth some suggestions on perfecting in legislation, in view of the deficiencies in legislation of the crime. (1) Definite the scope of others’ belongings. (2) Enlarging the object of the crime. (3) Making a distinctive punishment to the acts occupying different objects. (4) The maintaining of the large amount. (5) An exception should be added to the regulation upon complaint aiming at acts taking possession of public property unlawfully.更多还原