从占有到取得:我国盗窃罪教义学结构的补正

From Occupation to Acquisition:Correction of Dogmatic Structure of Theft in China

我国传统的盗窃罪结构机械地拼凑了两套难以兼容的盗窃罪结构的内容,一套是以占有为中心的盗窃罪结构,另一套是以秘密取得为核心的盗窃罪结构。中华人民共和国成立后,对民国旧法统的废除和资在产阶级刑法理论的排斥,阻碍了以占有为中心的盗窃罪对我国刑法的渗透。传统盗窃罪结构的这种缺陷在苏联(俄)刑法影响力退潮时,为德、日以占有为中心的盗窃罪结构的发展预留了空间。在我国侵犯财产性利益并非不能成立盗窃罪,这又构成了完全借用以占有为中心的盗窃罪结构的障碍。占有并非我国传统盗窃罪结构的核心,应以取得为中心来架构我国的盗窃罪结构,即在取得这一一级概念下针对盗窃财物和盗窃财产性利益分别设置二级概念,并进行必要的补正。作为盗窃罪对象的财产性利益应进行限缩。

The traditional structure of theft in China mechanically put together unfit contents of two incompatible structures of theft,one of which is possession-centered and the other is secretacquisition-centered. The abolition of the old legal system of the POC and the rejection of the bourgeois criminal law theory after the founding of PRC hindered the penetration of possession-centered theft in China. However, the defects of the traditional structure of theft provide space for the development of German and Japanese possession-centered structure of theft in China when the influence of Soviet( Russian) criminal law declined. But in China, infringing upon property benefit may also constitute a theft, which becomes an obstacle to using the possession-centered structure. Possession is not the core of traditional structure of theft in China, so we should take acquisition as the center to construct the structure of theft, that is to say, to set up second-level concepts respectively for the theft of property and the theft of property benefit under the first-level concept of acquisition and make necessary corrections. In addition, he property benefit as the object of the theft should be appropriately restricted.