摘要
单纯侵害财物的所有权或者占有,不足以奠定盗窃罪的法益侵害基础。盗窃罪理应与诈骗罪一样,被理解为侵害被害人整体财产价值的犯罪,财产损害是盗窃罪不成文的构成要件要素。所有权人单纯取回自己的财物而未索赔,或者债权人取走欠款人的金钱用于抵债,或者行为人留下足额“对价”而窃取他人财物等场合,都在客观上难以肯定盗窃罪的法益侵害结果,主观上难以肯定盗窃罪的非法占有目的 (应理解为非法获利目的)。盗窃的既遂时点,不是被害人失去财物或者行为人控制财物之时,而是窃取行为直接导致被害人遭受财产损害之时。行为完成时的财产损害数额构成盗窃数额,财产损害的计算应以经济损失为基础进行整体评价,同时对“对价”予以适当限定而不能过于宽泛,并应受到责任主义的限制。整体财产损害必要说不会导致对相应盗窃行为的放纵,相反该说在盗窃罪定罪和量刑两方面均有重要意义。
A mere infringement on ownership or possession is insufficient to establish the infringement on the legal interest protected by the offense of theft.Like fraud,theft should be conceptualized as an offense against the overall value of the victim's property,with property loss constituting an implicit yet indispensable element of its definition.In cases where an owner merely reclaims his or her own property without demanding compensation,a creditor takes a debtor's money to satisfy a debt,or the offender leaves adequate consideration after taking another's property,it is objectively difficult to demonstrate harm to the protected legal interest and subjectively difficult to establish the requisite intent of unlawful appropriation-more precisely,the intent to gain unlawfully.The offense of theft is consummated not at the moment the victim loses possession or the offender gains control,but at the moment the act results in actual economic harm to the victim.The amount of such harm at the time of the consummation of the act determines the value of the theft.This loss must be assessed holistically based on economic impact,with appropriately limited recognition of"consideration"to avoid overly expansive interpretations,and be re-stricted with the responsibility doctrines.Rather than excusing theft,the doctrine of necessary overall property loss reinforces both the substantive elements of the offense and its sentencing rationale.
出处
《法学研究》
北大核心
2025年第4期132-150,共19页
Chinese Journal of Law
基金
教育部重点研究基地重大项目“数字经济时代财产安全的刑法保障研究”(23JJD820005)的阶段性成果。
作者简介
付立庆,中国人民大学刑事法律科学研究中心教授。
