【作者】 王云龙；

【导师】 刘红臻；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 法律硕士（专业学位）， 2018， 硕士

【摘要】 2011年《刑法修正案(八)》对盗窃罪的入罪情形作了突破性地改变,将入户盗窃、扒窃等独立入罪,这些特殊的盗窃行为从此不再受犯罪数额和次数的约束。扒窃入刑严重打击了活动猖獗的扒窃团伙和扒窃犯罪分子,维护了公民的正常生活秩序和政府的公信力。但是由于扒窃入刑门槛较低,扒窃定义的概括性和抽象性,给司法者在司法实践中对如何界定扒窃行为带来了新的挑战。2013年两高通过司法解释的方式对扒窃进行了概括性的定义,虽然司法解释以概括性的语言对扒窃进行了定义,但是定义中没有对关键性的词语进行明确地说明,对实践中解决扒窃认定问题仍存在不足。此次对盗窃罪的修改,让我们对盗窃罪有了新的认识:首先,将盗窃罪所保护的法益,由单一法益上升到了多重法益,即扒窃入刑之前,盗窃罪仅保护公私财物所有权,扒窃入刑之后,盗窃罪除了保护公私财物所有权外,还保护被害人的人身安全和公共场所的公共安全;其次,盗窃罪由原来的结果犯上升到了结果犯和行为犯并存,即扒窃入刑之前盗窃行为成罪条件必须达到法定数额或者次数,在扒窃入刑之后,行为人只要实施了扒窃行为,无论扒窃的财物价值多少,也无论扒窃了几次都应当构成盗窃罪。本文从王某盗窃案的定性和处理结果入手,旨在进一步明确司法实践中认定行为的标准,本文对扒窃入刑的目的和原因进行分析,剖析扒窃概念中关键性词语,理清认定扒窃的两个关键要素,即“公共场所”和“随身携带”的内涵以及认定中存在的不同观点,并阐述笔者认同的在司法实践中便于掌握的认定标准,以便将来遇到类似案件提供可行性参考意见。本文正文包括以下四个部分的内容:第一部分:案件的基本情况。首先,该部分对王某盗窃案的基本案情做了详尽的介绍;其次,列举王某的盗窃行为是否认定为扒窃而予以刑事处罚的三种不同的处理意见。最后,通过分析王某盗窃案的三种不同处理意见,总结归纳出本案的争议焦点。第二部分:案件评析。该部分主要分为三个方面:首先,对扒窃的立法目的和入刑原因进行分析研究,深入探究扒窃入刑的必要性;其次,阐述构成扒窃的两个关键性要素“公共场所”和“随身携带的财物”的字面含义、法律内涵和学术观点,通过对上述两个概念界定过程中存在的不同观点进行列举,总结归纳出司法实践中对如何界定上述两个概念能够更加的明确和清晰;最后,根据刑法总则指导刑法分则的基本原理,阐明刑法总则第13条中的“但书”条款适用于盗窃罪中扒窃行为的法理学依据。第三部分:本案的分析与结论。该部分将第二部分的法理分析与本案相结合,以自己的角度得出作者对本案的处理意见。主要从两个方面阐明笔者对本案的观点:一是如何认定王某的行为;二是“但书”规定适用本案的理由。第四部分:本案的研究启示。立法者将扒窃独立入罪,并以司法解释的方式将扒窃行为进行了概况性的定义,但在司法实践中,司法者如何界定定义中的关键性词语仍存在着争议,这就需要我们在认定扒窃及对扒窃进行处罚时做到以下几点:第一,定罪量刑标准的适当与统一;第二,定罪量刑关键因素的重申。更多还原

【Abstract】 In 2011,"The eighth amendment to criminal law" into the crime of larceny situations made the change of the breakthrough,a burglary and pick-pocketing,independent into sin,these special theft since then no longer subject to the amount of crime and the number of constraints.The theft of pick-pocketing has dealt a serious blow to rampant pickpockets and pick-pocketing criminals,maintaining the normal life order of citizens and the credibility of the government.However,due to the low threshold of pick-pocketing,the general and abstract definition of pick-pocketing has brought new challenges to the judicial practice of how to define pick-pocketing.In 2013,projects through judicial interpretation to the definition of general of pick-pocketing,although the judicial interpretation to define pick-pocketing in general language,but not in the definition to specify the key words,to solve the problem of pick-pocketing decided that there are still insufficient in practice.The change in the crime of theft,let us to a new understanding of theft: first of all,the theft protection by the law,rose from a single law benefits to the multiple legal interests,namely the pickpockets punishment before stealing only protect the ownership of public or private property,pick-pocketing punishment after the theft protection in addition to protect the public and private property ownership of the victim’s personal safety and public safety;Second,stealing from the original results make up crime and behavior crime,namely the pickpockets punishment theft as a crime conditions must be met before the legal amount or number of pick-pocketing punishment after the person as long as the implementation of pick-pocketing,no matter how much pick-pocketing property value,or as pick-pocketing several times shall constitute theft.In this paper,from the qualitative and the processing result of Wang’s theft,analyze the pickpockets and reasons for the purpose of punishment,key words and analyze the concept of pick-pocketing,sorting out of two key elements of pick-pocketing,"public" and "carry" the connotation and cognizance that exist in the different point of view,and explains the author agree with standard of easy to grasp in judicial practice,provide feasibility reference for future similar cases.This article has a total of over 25,000 words,except for the introduction,which mainly includes the following four parts:The first part is the basic situation of the case.Firstly,this section introduces the basic case of Wang’s theft.Secondly,the article enumerates the three different processing opinions of whether Wang’s theft behavior is recognized as a criminal punishment.Finally,by analyzing the three different opinions of Wang’s heist,the author summarized the controversies in this case.The second part is about the legal analysis of related problems.This part mainly divides into three aspects: first,the legislative purpose of pick-pocketing and the reason of the entry are analyzed and studied,and the necessity of probing into the penalty of pick-pocketing is further explored.Secondly,this paper constitutes a pickpocket the two key elements of "public" and "carrying property" literal meaning,legal connotation and academic point of view,in the process of the above two concepts defined by existing different views are enumerated,sums up the judicial practice on how to define these two concepts can be more clear and clear;Finally,according to the general provisions of the criminal law,the basic principles of the sub-section of the criminal law are guided,and the article 13 of the general provisions of the criminal law is applicable to the jurisprudence of pick-pocketing in the crime of theft.The third part is the analysis and conclusion of this case.This part combines the jurisprudence of the second part with the case and obtains the author’s opinion on the case in his own way.This paper mainly explains the author’s viewpoint on the case from three aspects: one is that the hospital bed in the corridor of D city hospital should be regarded as the reason for "public place".The second is the reason that the victim of the crime in this case has been identified as "the property of carrying".The third is the case that the suspect in this case Wang’s pick-pocketing can be applied to the general provisions of the criminal law concerning the provisions of the proviso.The fourth part: the research revelation of this case.Lawmakers will pick-pocketing independent into sin,and will be in the form of judicial interpretation of the general situation of pick-pocketing definition,but in judicial practice,the judicial person how to define the key words in the definition is still controversial,this needs us in finding pick-pocketing and punishment for pickpockets when do the following: first,the concept of pick-pocketing is the key word again clear boundaries;Secondly,it is advisable to apply the "proviso" to the case of a wide pick-pocketing case.更多还原