论债务额存疑时“为索取债务”之认定  

On the Determination of“Claiming Debts”for the doubtful Debt

作　　者：包志胜 Bao Zhi-sheng(East China University of Political Science and Law,Shanghai 200333 China)

机构地区：[1]华东政法大学,上海200333

出　　处：《西部公安论坛》2019年第3期22-26,共5页Journal of Western Public Security

摘　　要：在行为人与被害人之间债务额存疑时,行为人非法扣押、拘禁被害人以索取财物的行为应以绑架罪抑或非法拘禁罪论处,司法实践意见不一。索债型非法拘禁罪与勒索型绑架罪的主要区别在于主观目的内容不同,前者以索取债务为目的,后者以勒索财物为目的。债务额存疑时行为定性的关键在于把握行为人主观目的的内容。如果有证据证明行为人主观目的内容的,依其目的内容定罪处刑。如果没有证据证明行为人主观目的内容的,应适用疑罪惟轻原则,认定行为人不具有勒索财物目的,对其以非法拘禁罪论处。When the amount of debt between the actor an d the victim is in doubt,the act of illegally detaining and detaining the victim to obtain property should be treated as a crime of kidnapping or illegal detention.The judicial practice differs.The main difference between the crime of illegal debts and the crime of blackmail kidnapping is that the subjective purpose is different.The former aims at claiming debts and the latter aims at extorting property.The key to characterizing the behavior of a debt is to grasp the subjective purpose of the perpetrator.If there is evidence to prove the subjective purpose of the perpetrator,the sentence shall be convicted and sentenced according to the purpose.If there is no evidence to prove the subjective purpose of the perpetrator,the principle of suspicion shall be applied,and the perpetrator shall be deemed not to have the purpose of extorting property,and shall be punished for the crime of illegal detention.

关 键 词：债务额存疑 主观目的 疑罪惟轻原则 勒索型非法拘禁罪 

分 类 号：D92[政治法律—法学]