多次盗窃出罪问题探究  

Exploration of Multiple Theft Offences

作　　者：莫乃玮 

机构地区：[1]贵州大学法学院,贵州 贵阳

出　　处：《法学（汉斯）》2023年第6期6561-6569,共9页Open Journal of Legal Science

摘　　要：自“多次盗窃”单独作为盗窃罪成立条件以来,行为人实施多次盗窃的行为是否应该一律入罪,在理论和实践中一直存在争议。虽然2013年“两高”出台的《关于办理盗窃刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》明确规定了“多次盗窃”的入罪标准,但在处理多次盗窃问题时,“同案不同判”的现象屡屡发生。《刑法》在处理多次盗窃案件过程中,不能一概论之,将多次盗窃中的轻微案件交由治安管理处罚法进行治理,是一种更合适的处理方式。本文从多次盗窃入罪标准进行研究,结合其实施过程中存在的主要争议,对多次盗窃行为出罪的合理性和必要性进行论证。研究多次盗窃行为的出罪路径,并非是对盗窃罪侵害法益的否定,而是寻找更为妥当的解决方式,避免司法不公,为实现实质正义提供助益。Since “multiple theft” is alone regarded as the condition for the establishment of the crime of theft, whether the perpetrator of multiple theft should be incriminated has been controversial in theory and practice. Although in 2013, “two high” issued “On the Handling of Criminal Cases of Theft of the Interpretation of the Law Applicable to a Number of Issues” clearly stipulates the “multiple theft” of the criminal standard, in dealing with the issue of multiple theft, “different judgments in the same case” phenomenon has occurred repeatedly. Criminal Law in the process of dealing with multiple theft cases, can not be generalized, the multiple theft of minor cases by the law of public security management punishment is a more appropriate way to deal with it. This paper studies the criminal standards of multiple theft and demonstrates the reasonableness and necessity of multiple theft offences by combining with the main controversies in the process of its implementation. The study of the multiple theft of the criminal path is not a negation of the infringement of the legal interests of theft, but to find a more appropriate solution to avoid miscarriage of justice and help achieve substantive justice.

关 键 词：多次盗窃 出罪模式 不起诉 

分 类 号：D92[政治法律—法学]