侵占罪:一个被误解已久的立法范例

The Crime of Embezzlement: An Example of Legislation Misunderstood Long

我国《刑法》规定的侵占罪是一个被误解已久的完美立法,借鉴国外的侵占罪立法及理论误导了对我国侵占罪的理解,应还原其饱含谦抑理念的内部结构和适用机制。我国《刑法》第270条第1款是委托物侵占和脱离占有物侵占的一体化规定。该条第2款通过例示的方式(遗忘物、埋藏物)规定了脱离占有物侵占的刑罚,它既非法律拟制也不是注意规定,而是一个单纯的刑罚条款。将“拒不退还(拒不归还)”视为一个独立的要素限缩了侵占罪的成立,更符合该罪为轻罪的定位。没有必要修正亲告罪的规定,纯正亲告罪的设定关闭了追诉侵占国家财产的通道。我国的侵占罪巧妙地将谦抑理念和类型区分融入一个法条,更兼顾了国家所有与个人占有之间的利益平衡。侵占罪的双重限制为其他救济措施的运行提供了充足空间,是一个将社会综合治理理念融入法条的典范。

The crime of embezzlement in China is a perfect legislation which has been misunderstood for a long time due to drawing lessons from legislations and theories in foreign countries so its internal structure and application mechanism with the idea of modesty should be restored.Paragraph 1 of Article 270 is applicable to both the encroachment of consigned goods and the encroachment of property under no one's occupation.Paragraph 2 provides for the penalty for the encroachment of property under no one's occupation by way of illustration forgotten or buried objects which is neither legal fiction nor reminding provision but a simple penalty clause.Regarding" refusal to return refusal to hand in "as an independent element limits the establishment of the crime of embezzlement and is in more compliance with the nature of this crime as a misdemeanor.There is no need to amend the provision about the crime of no trial without complaint and the provision on a pure crime of no trial without complaint closes the channel for prosecuting someone for the embezzlement of state property.The provision on the crime of embezzlement in China ingeniously integrates the concept of modesty and the distinction of types and also takes into account the balance of interests between state ownership and personal possession.The double limitations in the crime of embezzlement provide ample space for the operation of other relief measures and the provision is a model of integrating the concept of comprehensive social governance into the law.