论文部分内容阅读
《刑法修正案(八)》将“入户盗窃”作为盗窃罪的一种犯罪类型,纳入盗窃罪的罪状中,同时未对“数额较大”或者“多次作案”等侵财型犯罪中不可或少的定罪限制条件予以设置,深刻表明了立法者相较于一般盗窃,对“入户盗窃”予以严厉打击的态度。同时,我国实行宽严相济刑事司法政策,在认定过程中,“入户”过程也应当从严把握。近年来,各地已经办理了多起入户盗窃案件,但对在久未有人居住的房屋内行窃是否应当认定为入户盗窃,各地司法机关存在分歧,加之目前又没有出台相关司法解释,导致执法不统一。本文结合本院办理的一起在久未居住房内行窃案件,针对现实法律问题,通过分析“入户盗窃”之“户”及立法本意,为解决司法实践中产生的问题提供参考。
The Amendment to the Criminal Law (VIII), which incorporates “household burglary ” as a type of crime in theft into the guilt of theft, fails to “commit a large number of crimes” or “commits multiple crimes” The indispensable conditions of conviction for such crimes of infringement on property were set, which profoundly demonstrated the attitude of lawmakers in cracking down on “home-to-theft” in comparison with the general theft. In the meantime, our country implements the criminal justice policy of temper justice and strictness. In the course of cognizance, the process of “entering the home” should also be strictly controlled. In recent years, there have been many cases of home-based theft in various places. However, judging whether the theft in long uninhabited houses should be regarded as home-to-theft, there are disagreements among judicial organs in various parts of the world. In addition, no relevant judicial interpretation has been introduced so far, Unite. In this paper, we combine with the case of theft in a dwelling house for a long time, aiming at the actual legal problems and provide reference for solving the problems arising in the judicial practice by analyzing “household ” and the intention of legislation.