携带凶器抢夺行为定性研究——以郭学周故意伤害 抢夺案为例-qualitative research on snatching behavior with lethal weapon - taking guo xuezhous intentional injury snatching case as an example.docxVIP

有对被害人产生精神强制，所以不能转化为抢劫。郭学周在本案中携带了凶器并使用了凶器，在此点的认定上存在疑难情形，这对整个案件的性质起到关键的作用，因此，本文将此部分单独列为一章，进行重点研究，通过分析，本文认为郭学周不构成“携带凶器抢夺”的抢劫罪。第四部分是讨论郭学周是否构成抢夺罪：包括抢夺罪的概念、抢夺罪的犯罪构成、罪与非罪的认定、抢夺罪、携带凶器抢夺和抢劫罪这三罪之间的区别以及结论，本章结合案件的争议问题，着重叙述抢夺罪的犯罪构成以及抢夺罪、携带凶器抢夺、抢劫罪的区别，通过分析，本文认为郭学周成立抢夺罪。第五部分是结论：本部分对科学认识抢夺罪的构成特征、正确认定抢夺罪以及抢夺罪、携带凶器抢夺和抢劫罪的界限进行了总结。关键词：携带凶器抢夺抢劫罪抢夺罪AbstractLethalweaponsnatchofbehavioridentificationandrobbery,snatchcrimeassociatedwitheachother,butnoteasytodistinguishwiththem,asthemorecommontypeofmultipleviolationsofpropertycrimeinreallife,thedistinctionbetweenthemcorrectlyanddefinenecessary.Buthowshouldweunderstandthebehaviorofcarryingweaponssnatch,especiallywhencarryingaweaponcarriedbycountriesprohibittheexclusionshouldbehowtoidentifycriminalbehavior,thetheoryhasadifferentcontroversy.Thisarticleisacasewitharealoccurrence,basedonadifferentdisputeputforwardtheirownideas,andkeepthemrelevantlegalanalysisandcombingtojudicialpracticeproperconvictionandsentencing,maintainingtheauthorityandcredibilityofthejudiciary,alsoeffectivelyprotectthelegitimatevictimsofpropertyandpersonalrights.ThisarticlefocusesonselectedcasecontroversyGuoXuezhouwhowithakitchenknifeontheimplementationofintentionalinjuryvictimbehavior,fledafterthevictim,theperpetratorspurofthemomentbelongingsleftatthesceneremovedthevictimsbehavior,itshouldbeidentifiedasrobbery,carryingweaponsorsnatchsnatchcrime.Thispaperanalyzesthetheoreticalexpectations,amongthemthereareclearlydefined.Thetextisdividedintofiveparts:CaseSummary:thefirstpartwhichincludingcaseselectionreasons,thebasicfacts,thesubstanceofthereferee,thefocusofcontroversy.Thissectionistostartfromadifficultcase,thatGuoXuezhouwhoimplementationofintentionalinjurybehavior,thenvictimfled,thetemporaryspurofthemomentoftheperpetratorremovedvictimslegacyinthefieldthepropertythecriminalbehavior;theissueiswhetherthebehaviorconstitutethecrimeofsnatchorrobbery,whichleadstothefollowinglegalanalysis.Thesecondpartistodiscusswhetherthecaseisarobberycrime:itincludingrobbery,robberycrimeconstitute