司法实践中,分别存在于刑民视野中的遗忘物与遗失物之判断成为刑民责任界分的焦点,然而两者区分标准的模糊性往往造成法律事实认定的不统一性,同时该种界分逻辑本身也因有违刑法基本原则与犯罪构成理论而备受争议。实际上,不当得利与侵占罪之间并非非此即彼的关系,当不当得利超出某种范围符合了侵占罪的犯罪构成,其就进入刑法的视野归属刑法规范调整。 Judicial practice, the judgment of the forgotten things and the lost things that exist respectively in the criminal and civilian perspectives has become the focus of criminal responsibility boundaries, however, the ambiguity of the distinction criteria of the two often results in the non-uniformity of the legal facts. At the same time, Sub-logic itself is also controversial because it violates the basic principles of criminal law and crime constitution theory. In fact, the relationship between unjust enrichment and embezzlement is not the one-of-either relationship. When the unjust enrichment goes beyond a certain range and complies with the criminal constitution of embezzlement, its vision of entering the criminal law is subject to the norms of criminal law.