论文部分内容阅读
有身份者教唆或帮助信用证诈骗共同犯罪的法律定性存在着无身份者也成为正犯(实行犯)说、有身份者作为教唆犯无身份者是从犯说、有身份者构成间接实行犯无身份者是从犯说和有身份者和无身份者均构成信用证诈骗共犯说之争,但上述四种学说均有值得商榷之处从而都不足取。实际上对此问题的解决关键在于有身份者是否利用了本人身份的便利:如果有身份者没有利用本人的身份便利,有身份者和无身份者均构成信用证诈骗罪,其中有身份者应视为教唆犯或从犯;如果有身份者利用了本人的身份便利,有身份者和无身份者均构成贪污罪或职务侵占罪,其中有身份者应视为主犯(间接实行犯),对被教唆、帮助的无身份者则应当根据共同犯罪的整体性的性质,应视为从犯。
Persons who have abetted or helped to defraud a letter of credit in the crime of committing a common crime exist as anonymous (perpetrators) who say they are offenders who are abettors, and who have identity as indirect offenders It is not enough to argue that the four theories above are debatable. In fact, the key to resolving this issue lies in whether or not the identity holders make use of the convenience of their own identity: If the identity holders do not use their own identity and convenience, both the identity and the non-status constitute letters of credit fraud, among which identity As an abettor or an accomplice; if the status of those who use their own identity facilities, identity and non-status constitute a crime of embezzlement or occupational embezzlement, including those who should be regarded as the main perpetrators (indirect perpetrators) Anonymous persons who abet and help should be regarded as accomplices according to the integrity of the common crime.