侵占罪的保护法益及其实害判定  

The Protection of Legal Interests and the Judgment of the Actual Harm of the Crime of Embezzlement

作　　者：张红昌[1] Zhang Hongchang

机构地区：[1]海南师范大学法学院,海南海口571158

出　　处：《南海法学》2022年第6期14-25,共12页The South China Sea Law Journal

基　　金：2018年国家社科基金项目“侵权类民刑交叉案件的法律责任研究”,项目编号为18BFX118。

摘　　要：传统立场认为侵占罪的保护法益是财物所有权,而返还请求权说则主张侵占罪的保护法益是财物的返还请求权而非所有权。依据返还请求权说,当权利主体向行为人行使返请求权时,否定或者拒绝该种返还请求的即构成侵占罪。返还请求权说对传统所有权说提出了批评,并就自身的科学性提出了解释理由,不过其合理性备受质疑。侵占罪是将处于自己占有之下的他人财物非法占为己有的行为,变占有为非法所有是侵占行为以及侵占犯罪的本质与核心,故所有权才是侵占罪的保护法益。刑法条文对侵占罪设定了“拒不返还”“拒不交出”,其只不过是非法占为己有的同义表述,并非另外的犯罪成立条件或者刑事处罚条件。The traditional position holds that the protection benefit of the crime of embezzlement is the property ownership,while the theory of the right of return claims that the protection benefit of the crime of embezzlement is the property return claim rather than the ownership. According to the theory of right of return,when the subject of right exercises the right of return to the actor, denying or rejecting the return request constitutes the crime of embezzlement. The theory of restitution claim criticizes and doubts the traditional theory of ownership, and gives reasons for its own scientific nature,but its rationality has been questioned. The crime of embezzlement is the act of illegally taking the property of others under one’s possession as one’s own. Changing possession into illegal possession is the essence and core of the act of embezzlement and the crime of embezzlement. Therefore,ownership is the protection benefit of the crime of embezzlement. The provisions of the CRIMINAL law set“refusal to return”and “refusal to surrender” to the crime of embezzlement, which are only synonymous expressions of illegal occupation,rather than other conditions for the establishment of a crime or criminal punishment.

关 键 词：侵占罪 请求权 返还请求权 所有权 拒不返还 

分 类 号：D924.3[政治法律—刑法学]