摘要
许霆利用银行自动柜员机出现故障的机会大肆超额取出现金的行为,不构成侵占罪,也不构成信用卡诈骗罪,而是构成盗窃罪。许霆在主观上具有非法占有的目的,在客观上实施了以平和方法将银行占有的资金转移为自己占有的行为。许霆的行为属于"盗窃金融机构,数额特别巨大的"情形。但由于银行方面的过错所产生的巨大金钱诱惑,期待许霆选择不超额提款的可能性降低。因此,许霆的主观恶性程度较一般盗窃行为更低。应根据刑法第63条第2款的规定,对许霆减轻处罚。
Xu Ting's behavior that he use the banking failure of ATM to remove excessive cash wantonly does not constitute embezzlement, nor a credit card fraud, but a theft. Because, Xu Ting, subjectively with illegal possession of purpose, objectively transferred the bank funds to his own peacefully, his behavior is viewed as a phenomenon of "theft of financial institution and the amount especiaUy greatly". But owing to the great temptation of money caused by the bank's fault, the possible anticipation of Xu Ting's choice to remove excessive cash is reduced greatly. Therefore, Xu Ting's subjective malignant degree is lower than average. According to paragraph 2, article 63 of the Criminal Law, punishment on Xu Ting should be mitigated. However, mitigation of punishment can only be made below the statutory minimum sentencing range, and should not mitigate willfully.
出处
《北京理工大学学报(社会科学版)》
CSSCI
2009年第6期14-18,共5页
Journal of Beijing Institute of Technology:Social Sciences Edition
关键词
盗窃罪
盗窃金融机构
减轻处罚
crime of theft
theft of financial institution
mitigation of punishment