摘要
关于故意毁坏财物罪的认定,已经形成许多学说,其中物质毁损说、有形影响说、状态改变说和效用侵害说四种学说为学界所熟悉和推崇。这四种学说各有短长,但它们共同面对着是否构成毁坏财物的两个实践难题:改变外观与侵害效用。可以说,这两个实践难题是检验既有学说的尺度。改变外观与侵害效用分别从形式与实质两方面揭示了毁坏财物的核心要义。形式方面,“毁坏”的结构是直接针对财物本体施加作用力,行为样态则是足以给财物造成物质毁损;实质方面,“毁坏”侵害的法益是财物的客观效用。在逐渐发展过程中,既有学说暴露出某些偏颇。物质毁损说和状态改变说过分倚重毁坏的形式;有形影响说和效用侵害说过度重视毁坏的实质。在既有学说启发之下,总结优劣得失,应当提倡毁损危险说,即毁坏行为必须针对财物本体,通过足以造成物质毁损的方式侵害财物的客观效用。
Many theories have been formed on the identification of the crime of intentional destruction of property,among which there are four theories of material damage,tangible impact,state change and utility infringement.They are familiar and respected by the academic circle.Each of these four theories has its merits and demerits,facing two practical problems:property being changed appearance and infringed utility.It can be said that these two practical problems are the yardstick for testing the existing theories.Changed appearance and infringed utility reveal the core meaning of destroying property form and substance respectively.In terms of form,the structure of"destruction"exerts force directly on the property itself,while the behavior pattern is enough to cause material damage to the property.In terms of substance,the legal interest infringed by"destruction"is the objective utility of property.In the process of solving the problems,some bias of the existing theories is exposed.The theory of material destruction and change of state overly on the form of destruction;The tangible impact theory and the utility damage theory overemphasize the substance of the damage.Under the inspiration of these existing theories,we should advocate the theory of damage risk,that is,the damage behavior against the property itself,through the way that can cause material damage to the objective utility of property.
出处
《政治与法律》
北大核心
2023年第5期69-83,共15页
Political Science and Law
关键词
毁坏财物
改变外观
侵害效用
毁损危险说
Destruction of Property
Change the Appearance of Property
Infringement of Property Utility
The Theory of Damage Risk