论文部分内容阅读
随着我国城市化进程的加快,在公共场所扒窃的行为日益增多,严重扰乱社会秩序,降低民众社会安全感。为此《刑法修正案(八)》第三十九条增加三种盗窃罪情形,即“入户盗窃、携带凶器盗窃、扒窃的”。但是对“携带凶器盗窃、扒窃”中这个顿号含义的不同理解造成司法实践对“扒窃”案件处理的不同。对此,无论从扒窃行为的社会危害性入手还是回归立法本意,都应理解为有“扒窃”行为即可入罪,而不需要“携带凶器”等附加条件。
With the acceleration of the process of urbanization in our country, the behavior of pickpocketing in public places is increasing day by day, which seriously disrupts social order and reduces people’s sense of social security. To this end, “Criminal Law Amendment (8)” Article 39 to increase the three cases of theft, “home thefts, carrying theft, pickpocketing ”. However, different interpretations of the meaning of this comma in “Carrying a Robbery, Pickpocketing” result in differences in the judicial handling of cases of “pickpocketing”. To this end, no matter from the social harmfulness of pickpocketing or returning to the legislative intent, it should be understood that there is a “pickpocketing” act that can be criminalized without the additional requirement of “carrying a weapon”.