挪用公款罪若干问题研究

【作者】 丁伟；

【导师】 刘德法；

【作者基本信息】 郑州大学 ， 刑法学， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 挪用公款罪是我国刑法中比较重要的一类职务犯罪。随着我国改革开放的不断深入和社会主义市场经济的建立和发展，挪用犯罪上升幅度很大，严重破坏了社会主义市场经济秩序。本文以挪用公款罪为研究主题，运用历史分析、比较分析等方法，以对策指导性、实务性而非纯理论分析为重心，以改革开放以来我国社会主义民主法制发展进程为背景，对理解和完善挪用公款犯罪立法进行了初步的探讨。 回顾我国刑事立法的历程，尽管刑法理论与实务对挪用公款罪的研究成果众多而且有比较深入的讨论，但是，由于有关的刑事规范的欠缺和法条关系的复杂化，有关挪用公款罪的定罪处罚出现了的诸多问题和疑惑，在司法实践当中，这些疑难问题成为有关法律适用分歧比较集中之处。如何正确地看待这些问题的产生?对这些问题该如何界定?理论界对此有许多探讨，但是都没有给出一个清晰的脉络。本文的写作即是围绕这两个问题的主要部分展开的。 通过考察我国挪用公款罪的立法沿革，可以基本上将其划分为三个阶段：初期的创立时期，即1988年《补充规定》和1989年《补充规定解答》以后到《公司法》之前的时间；争论的时期，即2002年人大常委会解释之前的时间；选择的时划，即2002年解释以后至今的时间。做出这种划分的意义，在于通过这样一种历史的分析，找出了纷繁复杂的立法更迭的社会和法治变迁根源，因而，在主要疑难问题的法律适用上还应严格依照法律，而在法律理解上，应保持一种宽容的态度，这也是本文用来分析和处理挪用公款罪所谓主要疑难的总体观点。 有关挪用公款罪的主要问题集中在三个方面。其一是关于公款使用人。单位和自然人一样，都是刑事主体。不同的单位，无论国有或者私营，无论法人或者非法人，应具有平等的地位，享有平等的权利义务。“归个人使用”是挪用公款犯罪所必须具备的条件。其二是关于主体资格。国家工作人员的特征是从事公务。国家工作人员的范围应以1997年刑法第93条的规定为限。关于本罪的共同犯罪问题，应按照刑法总则关于共同犯罪的规定具体分析适用。其三是关于挪用行为。明确挪与用是复合行为，构成挪用公款罪必须两种行为同时具备。还对承包、租赁经营者“挪用”行为、银行、信用社工作人员“挪用”行为、担保形式的“挪用”以及证券交易所工作人员“挪用”行为等实践中的疑难问题的界定作了探讨。文章还就挪用公款罪的犯罪对象，关于利用职务之便问题以及挪用公款罪的主观方面等其他犯罪构成要件展开了讨论。 文章的最后部分，对挪用公款罪与相关的一些罪名的界限问题做出了考察和比较分析。更多还原

【Abstract】 The crime is a kind of more important crimes by taking advantage of duty in the criminal law of our country to appropriate public funds for personal use. Setting-up and development of deepenning constantly with reform and opening-up of our country and socialist market economy, ascensional range very much heavy to divert crime, destroy the socialist market economy order seriously. This text with leave theme of studying on crime , use historical analysis , comparative analysis method, with countermeasure guidance, practice but not pure theory analyse for weight, with of our country socialist democracy legal system develop process as background since the reform and opening-up, the crime legislate to carry on the preliminary discussion to understanding and perfecting and appropriating public funds for personal use.Review of our country criminal course of legislation, though criminal law theory and to appropriate public funds for personal use practice guilty research results numerous and have deep discussion, but because relevant criminal norm deficient and law a relation complicate, is it appropriate public funds for personal use declaring a great deal of questions and doubts appeared to punish guilty guilty to have something to do, among judicial practice, knotty problem these become relevant law suitable to apply place that difference concentrate relatively. How to treat the formulation of these questions correctly? To how should these questions be defined? There are a lot of discussions to this in the theory circle, but has not provided a clear train of thought . The writing of this text was launched around the main part of these two questions.Whether through investigate our country appropriate public funds for personal use guilty legislative evolution , can basic general their divide into three stages. Establishment period in initial stage , namely 1988; The period disputing, namely the time before explaining of Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress in 2002; What has been chosen period, namely explained the time so far in 2002. Make the meaning of this kind of division, lie in passing the analysis of this history, have found out the social changes origin governed by law that the numerous and complicated and complicated legislation changes, therefore is it is it should rigorously enforce according to law also to have to suitable to apply in main law of knotty problem, in on law understand, should keep one attitude of tolerance, this whether this text is it analyse and is it appropriate public funds for personal use crime so-called main overall view of difficulty to deal with to be used.The guilty subject matter is concentrated in three aspects about appropriating public funds for personal use. First use people about the public money. Units are all criminal subjects like natural person. Differentunit, state-run or private, no matter legal person or an legal person, should have equal positions , enjoy the equal rights and obligations. " belong to individual use " appropriate public funds for personal use terms crime must possess. Second about the subject qualification. The characteristic of national staff members is engaged in the public affair. National staff members’ range should be within the limit of regulation of article 93 of criminal law of 1997. About guilty complicity issue this , should is it suitable to apply to made a concrete analysis of according to the provision on complicity of general provisions of criminal law. Third about the behavior of diverting. Move clearly with with compound behavior, is it appropriate public funds for personal use crime must two kinds of behaviors possess meanwhile to commit. Still to contract, lease operator’s behavior of" diverting ", bank, staff members of credit office " divert" the behavior, guarantee " divert" and stock exchange staff member of form " divert " behavior circle of knotty problem of practice have the discussion made to order ". Article appropriate public funds guilty crime target for personal use also, about exploit one’s office quest更多还原