《刑法》第266条(诈骗罪)评注  

Comments on Article 266 of the Criminal Law(Criminal Norms for Fraud)

作　　者：柏浪涛[1] Bai Langtao

机构地区：[1]华东师范大学法学院

出　　处：《中国应用法学》2025年第2期182-197,共16页China Journal of Applied Jurisprudence

摘　　要：作为法益的“财产”与作为行为对象的“财产”应予以明确区分。单纯的处分自由不是诈骗罪的保护法益。“价值评价”的基础事实可以成为诈骗的内容。在无告知义务的前提下,单纯维持错误不构成诈骗罪。机器及人工智能无法成为受骗者,因为其缺乏自我意识和意思自治能力。其背后的管理人若预设了审核使用人身份的任务,则可以成为受骗者。诈骗罪可与敲诈勒索罪想象竞合,但与抢劫罪无法想象竞合。受骗人存在数量认识错误时,应根据处分规则是整体处分还是单个处分来判断处分意识。个别财产说混淆了作为行为对象的“财产”与作为保护法益的“财产”。在双向给付中,被害人损失的不是所处分的财物,而是对价利益;基于此,需要区分“影响标的物自身价值的目的”与“仅影响处分自由的目的”。“目的落空”在单向给付与双向给付中的功能不同。诈骗罪的“非法占有目的”应修改为“非法获利目的”。A clear distinction should be made between"property"as a legal interest and"property"as an object of behavior.The freedom of disposition is not the legal interest of fraud.The basic facts of"value evaluation"can be the contents of fraud.Under the premise of no obligation to inform,maintaining the error does not constitute fraud.Machines and a rtificial intelligence cannot be deceived because they lack of self-awareness and autonomous will.If the manager behind it has presupposed the task of verifying the identity of the users,it can be defrauded.Fraud can imaginatively concurrent with extortion,but not with robbery.When the deceived has a cognition mistake of quantity,the disposition consciousness should be judged according to whether the disposition rule is for the whole or individually.The theory of individual property confuses"property"as an object of behavior with"property"as a legal interests.In the bilateral payment,the loss of vi ctim are not the disposed property but the consideration interests;therefore,it is necessary to distinguish"the purpose that affects the intrinsic value of the object"from"the purpose that merely affects the freedom of disposition".The function of"failure of purpose"is different in unidirectional payment and bilateral payment.“The purpose of illegal possession”in fraud should be amended to“the purpose of illegal profit”.

关 键 词：诈骗罪 财产法益 认识错误 处分意识 财产损失 

分 类 号：D924.35[政治法律—刑法学]