论窃取财产性利益

On Stealing the Interest of Property

我国刑法虽然没有像德、日刑法那样区分财物与财产性利益,但在解释某种具体财产罪时,也得考虑其侵害的对象是仅限于狭义的财物还是也包含财产性利益。盗窃罪的对象仅限于狭义的财物(不包含财产性利益),是由盗窃罪的特征即构成要件所决定的。肯定财产性利益可以成为盗窃罪对象的主张,与区分财产罪的基本理论不符,会动摇财产罪的根基。狭义的财物和财产性利益的区分,与盗窃罪的成立相关。对窃取财产性利益的案件,不按盗窃罪而按诈骗罪等其他罪名定罪处罚,或者采取其他方式处理,是解决问题的最佳途径。

The property and the interest of property are not distinguished in Chinese Criminal Law like those in German or Japanese criminal laws, but at the time of interpreting a specific crime against property, whether the injured object is limited to the property in narrow sense or includes the interest of property must be taken into consideration. The object of the crime against property is limited to the property in narrow sense ( excluding the interest of property), which is determined by the features of the crime against property, i. e. constituent elements. The proposition advocating that the interest of property may become the object of the crime against the property is not inconformity with the basic theories of such crime, thus shaking the foundation of such crime. The distinction between the property in narrow sense and the interest of property is related to the establishment of the crime against property. For cases involving stealing the interest of property, it is the best way that the perpetrator is convicted of and sentenced according to other crimes such as fraud rather than the crime of theft or treated by other means.