盗窃罪疑难问题分析-法律专业论文.docx

I I 摘 要 摘 要 盗窃罪源于上古而至今仍具有多发性，是历来我国刑法所打击的重要犯罪之一。盗 窃罪在我国刑法学界也备受关注，在新的历史条件下，我国社会经济迅猛发展，新的盗 窃罪犯罪形式、盗窃罪犯罪对象也不断出现，有鉴于此，笔者将对盗窃罪疑难问题进行 研究，期望对我国司法实践中关于盗窃罪的法律适用有所裨益。盗窃罪作为一种财产型 犯罪，是否所有“财物”均可归入盗窃罪犯罪对象，在国内外存在不同的理论观点。笔 者通过对盗窃罪本质属性的界定，对无形财产、信用卡、违禁品、网络虚拟财产等几类 特殊对象之所以能归入盗窃罪犯罪对象进行了阐释。关于盗窃罪的客观方面，其行为特 征成为理论界争议的焦点，“秘密窃取”虽然已占据通说地位，但仍有学者持不同意见。 笔者认为“平和手段说”更具合理性。而对于盗窃罪的法定情形来说，我国 97 年刑法 采取了“数额”和“次数”为标准，刑法修正案（八）又进行了完善。笔者对数额较大 的、多次盗窃的、入户盗窃、携带凶器盗窃、扒窃问题进行了分析。对于盗窃罪能否构 成问题的研究，必然涉及到认识错误问题，司法实践中，行为人的认识错误包括了法律 上的认识错误与事实上的认识错误。在本文中，笔者在对盗窃罪认识错误进行解读的基 础上，提出了对这一问题如何进行处理的意见。至于盗窃罪的既遂标准问题，不仅在理 论界存在激烈的争论，司法实践中同样是难以解决的问题，关于这一问题，学界存在接 触说、转移说、控制说等观点。笔者以为，相对而言，控制说更加合理，能够使盗窃罪 构成要件得到全部、充分的满足。在此基础上，笔者用控制说对影响盗窃罪既遂的几种 具体情形——盗窃行为实施场所、盗窃行为实施时间、盗窃对象、利用网络实施盗窃进 行了详细的论述。 关键词 盗窃罪 盗窃对象 客观方面 认识错误 既遂标准 II II Abstract Abstract Larceny，which stems from the ancient, has always been one of the offenses in China’s criminal law. Larceny also brings up the concern in Chinas criminal law scholars. In the new historical conditions, with the rapid developing of China socio-economic, the new forms of Larceny, and the objects of crimes are also emerging. Based on this, I will study on some difficult problems, expecting to do some benefit to the application of Larceny in Chinas judicial practice.Larceny as a property crime, whether the property can be classified as its object, there are different theoretical perspective, both at home and abroad. Depending on the definition of the essential attribute of Larceny, I will explains the reasons why intangible property, credit cards, contraband, network virtual property, and other types of special objects can be classified as Theft crimes objects. The behavioral characteristics of the theoretical circles are the focus of controversy in the objective aspects of the theft. Although secret” has occupied through said position, there are still scholars hold different views. I believe that peaceful means is more reasonable. For the conviction standards, China Criminal Law in 1997has taken amount and