论文部分内容阅读
《刑法修正案(八)》对盗窃罪的认定进行了较大的修正,对入户盗窃及携带凶器盗窃、扒窃等三种盗窃的情形不再规定数额和次数的限制,实质上扩大了刑法对于盗窃罪的打击范围。但由于相关的司法解释未能及时出台,各地法院对于盗窃罪的审判标准不一,如“入户”、“凶器”、“随身携带”等法律概念的定义、既未遂标准等,并由此引发了量刑不平衡等问题。本文试图从入户盗窃的立法意图出发,就其定义和量刑进行分析和明确。
The Amendment to the Criminal Law (VIII), which has made great amendments to the identification of theft, no longer limits the number and frequency of theft in the home and the three types of theft, such as theft of weapon or pickpocketing, and substantially enlarges the criminal law The scope of the crackdown for theft. However, due to the failure of the relevant judicial interpretation to be promulgated in time, courts around the world have different standards for the trial of theft crimes, such as the definition of legal concepts such as “home”, “weapon”, “carry-on” Standards, etc., and lead to sentencing imbalance and other issues. This article tries to analyze and clarify its definition and sentencing from the legislative intent of theft.