论财产犯罪中的占有——以冉某盗窃案为切入

On Possession in Property Crime: Taking RAN’s Cutting-into Theft Case as an Example

刑法中占有的内涵源于民法,但由于民刑之间立法目的、调整手段迥异,其内涵又不能完全等同于民法。主客观相一致原则是刑法的基础性原则,对于刑法中占有的认定也需要从主客观两个方面进行考察。封缄物、货币等特殊物品的占有状态问题仅是刑法中占有内涵在特殊情况下的理解与应用,并未超出刑法占有的基本内涵。封缄物整体及其内容物占有状态的界定,应从刑法中占有的客观方面与主观方面、物理占有与观念占有来界定,不可一概而论。货币在民事领域“所有与占有的一致原则”,在刑事领域并非天然得以适用,仍须从刑法占有的基本内涵出发,对货币的“所有与占有的一致原则”适用情形进行限定。

The connotation of possession in criminal law comes from civil law,but because of the different legislative purposes and different means of adjustment,its connotation cannot be completely equated with civil law.The principle of subjective and objective consistency is the basic principle of criminal law.The determination of possession in criminal law also needs to be investigated from subjective and objective aspects.The state of possession of special objects,such as sealed objects and money,is only the understanding and application of possession connotation in criminal law under special circumstances,and does not exceed the basic connotation of criminal law possession.The definition of the whole and the state of possession of contents should also be defined from the objective and subjective aspects of possession in criminal law.Yes,it is not possible to be generalized.The“principle of consistency between all and possession”in the civil field is not naturally applied in the criminal field.It is still necessary to limit the application of the“principle of consistency between ownership and possession”of money from the basic connotation of possession in criminal law.