“平和窃取”行为之法律定性——兼论“平和窃取说”与“秘密窃取说”  

The Legal Nature of“Peaceful Theft”--On“Peaceful Theft”and“Secret Theft”

作　　者：辛旭东[1] 张元方 XIN Xudong;ZHANG Yuanfang(Humanities and Law School,Northeast Forestry University,Harbin,Heilongjiang 150000,China)

机构地区：[1]东北林业大学文法学院,黑龙江哈尔滨150000

出　　处：《沧州师范学院学报》2024年第2期97-104,共8页Journal of Cangzhou Normal University

摘　　要：近年,“平和窃取”行为频发,传统的“秘密窃取说”对此类新型犯罪行为评价能力有限,导致实践中对平和窃取行为的认定不一,引发同案不同判的现象。而“平和窃取说”的提出与发展有望实现对传统盗窃罪的补充。出于不损害国民的习惯认知及法的稳定性的目的,应将“平和窃取”行为的要素进行拆分,针对主客观一致的平和窃取行为可依“秘密性”与“公然性”分别认定为盗窃和抢夺,而对于基于认识错误导致主客观不一致的平和窃取行为,应纳入盗窃罪的评价范畴。As a common offense of property crimes in our country,theft is a focus of research in the theoretical field.In recent years,the phenomenon of“peaceful acquisition of wealth”is frequent,and the traditional“secret theft theory(old theory)”has limited ability to evaluate this kind of new criminal behavior,which leads to the different recognition of“peaceful theft”in judicial practice,and then leads to the phenomenon of different sentences for the same case.The proposal and development of“peaceful theft theory”is expected to supplement the traditional theft crimes.Based on the difficulty of identifying robbery and theft formed by the old theory,in order not to damage the national customary cognition and the stability of the law as much as possible,the elements of“peaceful theft”should be divided.Consistent peaceful theft behaviors can be identified as theft or robbery based on“secrecy”and“openness”respectively,while behaviors of openly acquiring wealth resulting from cognitive errors leading to inconsistency between subjective and objective aspects should be included in the evaluation scope of theft crimes.

关 键 词：盗窃罪 抢夺罪 秘密窃取 平和窃取 

分 类 号：D914[政治法律—刑法学]