行使财产权过程中地敲诈勒索行为研究.pdf

即对行为人的主观意思的判断，通过这一标准来区分行使财产权与财产犯罪，主观 上的恶意是构成犯罪至关重要的一点。一国的刑事政策对犯罪打击力度的不同，也会对 行为的定性产生影响，一般在社会较为混乱的时候，国家会采取较重的刑罚来打击犯罪、 维护统治。 第四部分，这部分主要是笔者对该问题的看法，将第三部分总结出的依据，用于我 国的实际情况，讨论了我国的法益保护范围、行为人的主观意思和刑事政策对行为定性 的影响。我国通用的“所有权说”已经不能适应不断变化的实际，笔者认为敲诈勒索罪 的法益应当“首先是财产所有权及其他本权，其次是需要通过法定程序改变现状（恢复 应有状态）的占有”。另外，行为人以胁迫方式行使财产权的行为在主观方面必须具有 “非法占有的目的”才可能构成敲诈勒索罪。我国当前“宽严相济”的刑事政策决定了 对此类行为不宜一概认定为犯罪行为。最后，对实践中的消费者维权行为等几种具体行 使财产权行为进行认定，本文的主要观点是善意行为人的行使财产权行为原则上不作为 财产犯罪处理，但是在行为人的敲诈勒索行为的手段超出必要限度的情况下，有可能构 成其他的犯罪。 关键词：行使财产权；敲诈勒索罪；依据；定性 Abstract Using stress way to retrieve their belongings, achieve due creditors rights, or other rights of their property ,this kind of behavior have a common in realizing of right of illegal means. Because of means of stress, the behavior is very similar with the crime of blackmail,which raises a question ,this kind of behavior is the exercise of property rights,or a crime? This paper is divided into four parts to make this problem: The first part, we make a definition on the behavior of property rights, the act of exercising property rights mainly have two types, one is the person has the rights to asking others to return in private law in the situation of their own property possession by others. Another is one has the rights to obtain property or property interest from others. We have few reseaches in this area, there also has some controversy in the judicial congnizance, mainly the act is a right or crime. The first problems is to grasp of the nature of the behavior, the author thinks that the behavior is essentially a kind of self-help behavior,becausing of the characteristics of this kind consistent with the private relief. The second part, this part is to reseach the handing of this problem of Britain, United States,Germany and