盜竊車牌勒索財(cái)物行為的定性——以龐某盜竊案為例.pdf

1、1盜竊車牌勒索財(cái)物行為的定性——以龐某盜竊案為例內(nèi)容摘要近年來，汽車保有量大幅提升，盜竊車牌勒索財(cái)物類案件頻發(fā)，引起了社會(huì)各界的廣泛關(guān)注，但理論及實(shí)踐中對(duì)該類案件的認(rèn)識(shí)存在較大分歧，機(jī)動(dòng)車號(hào)牌法律性質(zhì)認(rèn)定，該按何種罪定性處罰，犯罪行為是否存在牽連關(guān)系等問題眾說紛紜。這些分歧不僅反映了司法實(shí)踐對(duì)該類案件處理的混亂，而且還造成同罪異罰乃至量刑不公，危及法律權(quán)威，使廣大民眾無法正確的認(rèn)識(shí)該類犯罪，影響刑法的教育作用。本文選取龐某盜竊車牌勒索財(cái)

2、物案，對(duì)該類案件的定性進(jìn)行了分析研究。除引言外，正文包括四部分：第一部分，案件的基本情況。簡(jiǎn)要介紹了本案的案由——龐某盜竊案以及主要案情，包括龐某盜竊車牌勒索財(cái)物案的犯罪過程、被盜車牌數(shù)量、車牌價(jià)值及敲詐勒索非法得款數(shù)額。并介紹了本案分歧意見和爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)。簡(jiǎn)要介紹了理論界對(duì)盜竊車牌勒索財(cái)物類案件定性存在的五種觀點(diǎn)：第一種觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為構(gòu)成盜竊國家機(jī)關(guān)證件罪；第二種觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為構(gòu)成破壞生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營罪；第三種觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為構(gòu)成盜竊罪；第四種觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為構(gòu)成敲詐勒索罪

3、；第五種觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為構(gòu)成盜竊國家機(jī)關(guān)證件罪、敲詐勒索罪與破壞生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營罪，三者存在牽連關(guān)系，應(yīng)從一重處罰。筆者認(rèn)為本案的分歧焦點(diǎn)在于：第一，機(jī)動(dòng)車牌是否屬于國家機(jī)關(guān)證件。如果是，那么本案可能涉嫌盜竊國家機(jī)關(guān)證件罪，如果認(rèn)為車牌是普通財(cái)物，則可能構(gòu)成盜竊罪；第二，盜竊車牌勒索財(cái)物行為究竟侵害了什么法益。如果認(rèn)為車牌價(jià)值輕微或無價(jià)值，但對(duì)正常的生產(chǎn)、生活秩序造成危害，盜竊車牌勒索財(cái)物行為可能構(gòu)成破壞生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營罪；若認(rèn)為該行為只是對(duì)他人財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)利的直接

4、侵害，則可能構(gòu)成盜竊罪或敲詐勒索罪；第三，一罪還是數(shù)罪。盜竊車牌與勒索財(cái)物行為之間是否存在牽連關(guān)系，如若存在，是數(shù)罪并罰，還是從一重3AbstractAbstractRecentlywiththeinventyofmobilepromotingrapidlytheMobileLicenseStolenPropertyExttion(MLSPE)getstothehighpointofitsratewhichcausestheattent

5、ionofthewholesociety.HoweverbytheacknowledgeofthecaseofMLSPEtherearestillgreatdivergencesexistingintheidentificationofmobilelicenseinlawviewthepunishmentwhetherthecriminalisimplicatedoffensesetc.Itisthedivergencesnotonly

6、reflectingthemessofdealingMLSPEbutalsomakingthepunishmentunfairthatgivesthecitizenmisconceptiontoMLSPEimpactstheeducationofcriminallawevencrashestheauthityofthelaw.ThisessayedfromPang’sMLSPEconcludestheanalyzationincludi

7、ngfourpartsexcepttheabstract:ThefirstpartThebasicinfmationofthecase.BrieflydescribingthecauseofthecasetheprocessofthecriminalofPang’sMLSPEsuchastheamountofthemobilesthevalueofmobilelicensestheamountofthemoneyillegallyobt

8、ainedinthecriminal.thefocusofthedebatethedivergencesfthecase.BrieflydescribingtheFivePointsofviewinlawtheytoMLSPE.ThefirstviewbelievesMLSPEastheTheftoftheganizationofOfficialCertificate.ThesecondbelievesMLSPEastheCrimeso

9、fDisruptingtheProductionOperation.ThethirdbelievesMLSPEastheLarceny.ThefourthbelievesMLSPEastheOffenceofExttionbyBlackmail.ThefifthbelievesMLSPEastheTheftoftheganizationofOfficialCertificatetheOffenceofExttionbyBlackmail

10、theCrimesofDisruptingtheProductionOperationtogetherwhichshouldbedealtseriouslyintotheGraveCrimewiththeimplicatedoffensesofthethreeabove.Inmypersonalopinionthefocusofthecase’sdivergenceexistsinasfollowingpoints.Firstlywes

11、houldmakeclearwhetherthemobilelicenseisidentifiedbytheganizationofOfficialCertificate.MLSPEwouldbeidentifiedastheTheftofTheganizationofOfficialCertificateifthemobilelicensereallyis.HoweverMLSPEwouldbeidentifiedastheLarce