作　　者： ;

机构地区： 华南师范大学

出　　处： 《政治与法律》 2019年第7期50-65,共16页

摘　　要： 盗窃罪与诈骗罪互斥的传统刑法理论无法正确划分两罪的界限,也无法解释两罪竞合逻辑悄然流行的现象。从立法论维度看,诈骗是由双边关系的盗窃罪间接正犯拟制而来的,法条竞合与互斥属一体两面;对于两罪的界分,应将视角由互斥论转向竞合论,将重心由行为性质转向行为归属。从解释论维度看,三角关系的侵财行为虽然超出立法预设,但两罪的法条竞合仍发挥作用,它限制了想象竞合的司法适用,并使三角诈骗与盗窃罪间接正犯的界分标准由第三人的行为性质转向第三人的行为归属。从司法论维度看,网络侵财行为的第三人具有双重属性,盗窃网络财产与诈骗智能机器的想象竞合成为普遍现象。进行司法处理时,应注意盗窃与诈骗的教义内涵,正确选择定性的罪名。 The traditional theory of mutual exclusion between theft and fraud could not draw a clear line between them or explain the phenomenon that their concurrence has subconsciously become a popular logic. From the legislative perspective, fraud is a legal fiction from the indirect perpetration of a theft with bilateral relationship,so overlapping of legal articles and mutual exclusion are the two sides of one coin. Thus, as for the distinction between them, the view should be switched from the theory of mutual exclusion to the theory of concurrence, and also the focus from the nature of conduct to the ascription of conduct. From the perspective of interpretation, the triangle-relationship property infringement surpasses the legislation's preset, but the overlapping of the articles on theft and fraud also play a role to limit the application of imaginative concurrence of offenses ant make the standard of distinction between indirect perpetration of theft and triangular fraud switch from the nature of conduct of the third party to the ascription of conduct of the third party. From the perspective of judicial practice, the third party in the online property offense enjoys dual attributes, so the imaginative concurrence of stealing online property and deceiving intelligent machine is common. When such cases are handled in justice practice, attention should be paid to the dogmatic connotations of theft and fraud for correctly deciding the name of conviction.

关 键 词： 盗窃 诈骗 竞合论 盗窃罪间接正犯 三角诈骗

分 类 号： [DF625]

领　　域： []