“偷租”行为之定性——财产犯罪的第三条解释路径  

On Characterization of"Subletting without Permission":The Third Interpretation Path of Property Crime

作　　者：张泽龙 ZHANG Ze-long(Southwest University of Political Science&Law,Chongqing,China,341000)

机构地区：[1]西南政法大学,重庆401120

出　　处：《广东开放大学学报》2023年第5期50-56,72,共8页JOURNAL OF GUANGDONG OPEN UNIVERSITY

基　　金：西南政法大学法学院2023年度学生科研创新项目(FXY2023089)。

摘　　要：把“偷租”行为认定为诈骗罪与盗窃罪值得商榷。侵占不动产不满足盗窃罪“转移占有”的本质。根据合同相对性原理,户主不存在对租客的债权请求权。可罚的使用盗窃本质上是法益侵害的判断,盗用行为未达到阻碍权利人利用财物价值程度的,不具有可罚性。“偷租”行为不存在诈骗被害人,且以诈骗论存在处罚漏洞。由于缺少“受骗人处分被害人财产”的要素,三角诈骗也援用困难。使房屋价值贬损的行为属于“毁坏”行为。“偷租”行为支配租客对房屋施加直接、有形、物理的影响,通过间接正犯形式进入故意毁坏财物罪的构成要件内。Whether the act of"Subletting without Permission"is classified as a crime of fraud or theft is a topic needed to be researched.Embezzlement of immovable property does not meet the essence of theft as"transfer of possession".According to the principle of contract relativity,the house owner does not have the right to claim the tenant's debt.The use of theft that can be punished is essentially a judgment of infringement of legal interests.If the act of theft does not reach the level of hindering the right holder from utilizing the value of property,it does not have the nature of punishment.There are no victims of fraud in the act of"subletting without permission",and there are loopholes in the punishment of fraud.Due to the lack of the element of"the victim's property being disposed of by the deceiver",triangular fraud is also difficult to apply.The act of depreciating the value of a house belongs to the act of"destruction".The act of"subletting without permission"dominates tenants to exert direct,tangible,and physical influence on the property,and enters the constitutive elements of the crime of intentional destruction of property through indirect accomplices.

关 键 词：故意毁坏财物罪 盗窃罪 诈骗罪 毁坏 

分 类 号：DF625[政治法律—刑法学]