第三人取走死者财物行为的定性与证成路径选择

Determination and Argumentation of the Third Person Taking Possession by the Deceased

对于第三人从事故现场取财的行为,司法实务一般定盗窃罪。这会面临内外两方面质疑。就外部而言,司法实务需要回应理论通说定侵占罪的主张。一方面,该行为包含趁人之危、破坏事故现场和冲击善良风俗等较侵占行为不法程度更高的因素。另一方面,定侵占罪也不利于财物追回,故应当否定侵占罪而成立盗窃罪。就内部而言,司法实务需回答占有概念过分宽延的疑问,“规范的占有说”则回应了该疑问。至于具体的占有主体则有三种解释路径可供选择,一是死者生前占有延续说,二是场所管理人占有说,三是继承人占有说。可借鉴民法保护财产思维修正继承人占有说,如此,可在维持占有概念通说的情况下证成盗窃罪,因此该说是最佳选择。

The third party taking property from the accident scene is decided as the crime of theft in judicial practice,which faces skepticism both at home and abroad.Externally,the claim of a theoretical generality to the crime of embezzlement needs responding from the following two aspects.Firstly,it is due to the behavior includes taking unfair advantage,destruction of the accident site,impact of good customs and other factors that are higher than the illegal degree of embezzlement.Secondly,determination of the embezzlement crime is not conducive to the recovery of property.Therefore,the determination of the theft crime is more suitable than that of the embezzlement crime.Internally,the question that the concept of possession is too broad should be responded with normative pos⁃session theory.Specific possession subject may be interpreted in three ways,that is,the continuation of the de⁃ceased's possession,possession of the site administrator,and inheritance transfer theory.The best choice is inheri⁃tance transfer theory revised with the thought of protecting property in civil law.