财产犯罪法律规定的比较分析——以日本、德国、中国刑法为对象

Comparative Analysis of Legal Provisions of Property Crimes: Taking Penal Codes of Japan, Germany and China as Objects

通过分析日本、德国刑法关于财产犯罪的规定,可以发现:在行为对象上,日本刑法区分了财物和财产性利益、德国刑法区分了物和(狭义)财产,并由此导致两国在保护法益问题上形成了两种不同的理论范式;在盗窃等取得型犯罪的行为方式上,日本、德国刑法或直接或间接就其中的财物犯罪规定了占有这一客观构成要件要素;在主观目的上,德国刑法区分了不法所有目的和不法获利目的;在财产损害上,德国刑法仅就(狭义)财产犯罪规定了财产损害要素;而日本刑法在主观目的、财产损害这两方面未作明确规定,遂使得理论上时有争议。与日本、德国不同,中国刑法在行为对象、取得型犯罪的行为方式、主观目的、财产损害等方面,均未作区别规定,故在解释财产犯罪的构成要件要素时,需分别适用一元概念和理论;区分不同犯罪类型,分别构建解释学概念和理论的思路,缺乏法律规定上的依据。

Through analyzing the legislation concerning property crimes in the penal code of Japan and Germany, we can find out that two different theory paradigms of legal interest are formed because property and property interests have been distinguished in Japan meanwhile object and property(in the narrow sense) have been distinguished in Germany;As the act in crime of appropriation, penal codes both in Japan and Germany stipulate possession as one of constituent elements of the stealing directly or indirectly;The purpose of appropriation and the purpose of obtaining benefit are distinguished in penal code of Germany;In the aspect of property damage, only damage element is defined in property crime(in a narrow sense) in penal code of Germany while neither purpose nor property damage is clearly defined in penal code of Japan. Unlike Japan or Germany, there is no provision has been made to differentiate object of act, act in crime of appropriation, purpose and property damage in penal code of China. As a result, we have to apply every and each concept and principle in order to make reasonable explanation of constituent elements of property crime in penal code of China.