论文部分内容阅读
《刑法修正案(八)》将“扒窃”作为一种单独的该当盗窃罪构成要件的行为方式,这种犯罪定义过程在中介本位的犯罪定义观的分析框架下,是否具有合理的根据仍有待分析。此外,围绕在扒窃型盗窃罪的构成要件认定中是否需要添加“数额”、“携带凶器”等要素对扒窃进行解释论的限制有不同意见。笔者试图在解释论的立场上,回答上述诸多问题,同时认为,扒窃型盗窃罪的构成要件基本设置放弃了数额较大的定量规格,但要求有“公共场所”、“他人随身携带财物”、“行为人实施扒窃常习性”的构成要件要素的限制。“行为人常习性”属于一种行为人特征,是应公共场所的风险应对之需而设定的行为人刑法条款,但在现代刑法的视野里,只能对其作限制处罚范围功能的解释。
The Amendment to the Criminal Law (8) regards “pickpocketing” as a separate mode of action that should be taken as a component of theft, and whether such a crime definition process has a reasonable basis under the framework of an intermediary crime definition view Still to be analyzed. In addition, there are different opinions about the restriction of the explanation of the pickpocketing around the necessity of adding “Amount ” “Carrying a weapon ” in the identification of constitutional elements of pickpocketing crime. The author tries to answer many of the above questions from the standpoint of interpretation theory. At the same time, he believes that the basic set-up of constitutional elements of pickpocketing abandon quantitative quotas of a large amount, but requires “public places” and “others to carry Property ”, “ actors to implement the usual habits of pickpockets ”elements of the composition of the elements. “Behavioral people’s habituality ” belongs to a kind of behavioral person’s characteristic, it is the criminal law clause of the perpetrator that should be set according to the needs of the public place’s risk response. However, in the field of modern criminal law, explanation of.