成立表见代理情形下代理人行为的刑法定性  

The Criminal Legality of Agent's Behavior in Apparent Agency

作　　者：洪明 HONG Ming(School of Law,Wuhan University,Wuhan,Hubei 430072,China)

机构地区：[1]武汉大学法学院,湖北武汉430072

出　　处：《河北工业大学学报（社会科学版）》2021年第1期63-70,共8页Journal of Hebei University of Technology：Social Sciences Edition

摘　　要：成立表见代理情形下的刑事案件之处理在实务中存在争议。传统的“先刑后民”程序需要予以转变,在民事关系的理清具有区分罪与非罪、此罪与彼罪的重要意义时,“先民后刑”的程序具有必要性。表见代理的成立与合同诈骗罪不能并存。依据整体财产减少说,善意第三人不存在财产损失而不认定为财产犯罪的被害人。同时不能任意对合同诈骗罪作出扩大解释,因而被代理人不是合同诈骗罪的被害人。依“先民后刑”程序顺序,区分被代理人为单位或个人,行为人行为可分别认定为职务侵占罪或盗窃罪。There are disputes in the handling of criminal cases under the circumstance of apparent agency.The traditional procedure of"criminal trial comes first"needs changing,while the procedure of"civil trial comes first"is necessary for people to distinguish the civil relationship between the crime and the non-crime,this crime and the other crime.The establishment of apparent agent and the crime of contract fraud cannot co-exist.According to the theory of overall property reduction,if the bona fide third party does not have any property damage,he/she cannot be recognized as a victim of property crime.At the same time,it is not possible to arbitrarily amplify the interpretation of the crime of contract fraud,so the agent is not the victim of it.According to the principle of civil procedure prior to criminal procedure,the agent shall be distinguished as a unit or an individual,and the behavior of the perpetrator shall be determined as the crime of duty encroachment or larceny.

关 键 词：表见代理 刑民交叉 职务侵占罪 盗窃罪 

分 类 号：D924[政治法律—刑法学]