论文部分内容阅读
我国刑法第264条对盗窃罪犯罪对象并没有明确区分动产与不动产。对于实践当中出现的保安擅自出租业主房屋的行为性质该如何定性,观点不一。有观点分别认为该行为构成盗窃罪,诈骗罪,非法侵入住宅罪。根据我国刑法及现有司法解释,笔者经过分析认为,该行为不构成犯罪,仅构成民事侵权。但在,现实社会当中,盗窃罪的对象往往不一定能够被评价为刑法意义上的公私财物但是此类物品又对被害人相当的重要。对于盗窃罪的公私财物笔者认为通过对具体案件的考察,能够对被害人产生重大影响及与其切身利益有关的物品能够成为盗窃罪的犯罪对象。
Article 264 of Criminal Law of China does not make a clear distinction between movable property and real property on the object of crime of theft. There are different opinions on how nature of the behaviors of unauthorized owners of rental houses in the practice of security should appear. Some viewpoints that the act constitutes a theft, fraud, illegal invasion of housing crime. According to our criminal law and the existing judicial interpretation, the author analyzes that the act does not constitute a crime, only constitutes a civil infringement. However, in the real world, the object of theft usually can not be assessed as public-private property in the criminal law sense, but such objects are quite important to the victim. For the theft of public and private property I believe that through the investigation of specific cases, can have a significant impact on the victim and the vital interests of the object can be the object of crime of theft.