论抢劫不动产行为的定性-刑法学专业论文.docxVIP

Abstract As to the issue of the determination of nature of the act of real estate robbery, it has always been disputable in the theoretical circles. Distinguishing the act of real estate robbery is the foundation for the determination of its nature. Through the introduction and appraisal of different disputable opinions, the act of real estate robbery should be regarded as the crime of robbery. The act of real estate robbery includes three parts: manners of the act (violence, duress), contents of the act (unlawful ownership) and objects of the act (real estate). Violence and duress means that the actor takes forceful measures to the victim and the degree of which is enough to resist the resistance of the victim. Unlawful ownership means getting rid of other people’s relationship of control of the property and establishing a new relationship of control. Its nature is unlawful and essence, ownership. Real estate refers to stuff that cannot be moved the move of which will cause the change of its nature or shape, thus lead to economic loss. I n the judicial practice, real estate robbery can be divided into two types: forceful control and forceful transfer. The difference of the two is that the purpose of forceful control is to obtain the right of ownership of the real estate, while the purpose of forceful transfer is to gain the pro forma right of possession the real estate. At present, there are four disputable opinions about the determination of nature of the act of real estate robbery in the theoretical circles. They are opinion of the crime of unlawful break-in, opinion of the crime of robbery, opinion of the crime of picking quarrels and stirring up troubles and opinion of the crime of civil transgression. The reason of the dispute is that different academicians has different judgments on legal interest Protection of the robbery and the definition of unlawful ownership of robbery. Targeted against the reasons for the four major divergent opinions, a clarification