职务侵占罪的处罚困境与解决路径——以利用职务便利盗窃本单位财物行为为例  

Predicament of Punishment for the Crime of Embezzlement in the Post and Solutions——A Case Study of Stealing Unit Property by Utilizing Professional Convenience

作　　者：莫晓宇[1] 张瑞曦 Mo Xiaoyu Zhang Ruixi(Law School, Sichuan University, Chengdu Sichuan, 610207, China)

机构地区：[1]四川大学法学院,四川 成都 610207

出　　处：《西南石油大学学报（社会科学版）》2017年第1期53-58,共6页Journal of Southwest Petroleum University(Social Sciences Edition)

摘　　要：利用职务便利窃取本单位财物的行为,无论将其认定为盗窃罪还是职务侵占罪都会造成罪刑不相适应。为解决这个问题,应当将职务侵占罪的行为方式纯化为"侵吞"的一种,同时,只要认定为职务侵占罪中的"利用职务上的便利"就意味着行为人占有了目标物,在自己占有的情况下盗窃无从谈起,利用职务便利窃取的行为也就没有存在的余地。在主客观不一致的场合下,由于对"利用职务上的便利"的解释,使得职务侵占罪与盗窃罪不能并存,在这种情况下认定为无罪显然是不公平的。行为人客观上实施了盗窃行为,但由于主客观不一致无法认定为盗窃罪,至少可以成立侵占罪,同时行为人主观上的职务侵占故意也可以评价为侵占故意,故行为人在侵占罪的范围内主客观统一,应当认定为侵占罪。It is not appropriate to convict the behavior stealing unit property by utilizing professional convenience either as larceny or as crime of embezzlement in the post. To solve this problem, we suggest that the behavior of crime of embezzlement in the post be defined as one type of embezzlement behavior, and that the behavior of ＂utilizing professional convenience＂ in crime of embezzlement in the post means the possession of the target property, in which circumstances stealing does not apply. Because of such interpretation of ＂utilizing professional convenience＂, the inconsistence between the subjective and objective condition makes it impossible for the crime of embezzlement in the post and larceny coexist, but it is obviously unfair to convict such behavior innocent. In such case, stealing is conducted in reality, without such subjectivity; therefore it can be convicted the crime of embezzlement in the post, as the subjective intention of embezzlement is involved.

关 键 词：职务侵占罪 盗窃罪 侵占罪 侵吞 职务便利 

分 类 号：DF625[政治法律—刑法学]