职务侵占罪、侵占罪，还是盗窃罪？

成果信息
DC信息
传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属院系：

法学院

作者：

杨少萍

导师：

马家福

导师单位：

法学院

学位：

硕士

语种：

中文

关键词：

职务侵占;主体;利用职务上便利;非法占为己有;代为保管;拒不退还;占有

摘要：

97 《刑法》增设 侵占罪、职务侵占罪后， 学界 主要围绕侵占罪、职务 侵占罪的四个构成要件展开 研究 ，对职务侵占罪、侵占罪、盗窃罪相互间 的区分也有研究，但是，这些研究 总是一些概括性的表述，不能涵盖或者 说甄别、指导所有千变万化的实践案件。 随着连锁企业在我国由导入期进 入发展期，如何界定连锁企业等新型企业员工范围、如何保障个体工商户 的利益，已成为处理具体案件面临的法律适用难题。为此，文章在选择一 个具体案例的基础上， 以案例涉及的争议焦点为线索， 集中探讨职务侵占 罪的主体范围、 三罪的客观特征、三罪的区分关键等三 个 方面问题 以期 为司法实践中处理类似案件 、 解决职务侵占罪、侵占罪、盗窃罪的法律适 用问题提供有益的帮助 。 全文分六个部 分，约 3 4 000 字。 第一部分， 案由。 简单阐明案例涉嫌的 罪 名 是职务侵占罪。 第二部分， 案情。 根据案件的 时间 发展顺序，详细叙明案情 及与定 性有关的行为、情节。 第三部分， 案件焦点。 点明案 例 的焦点在于行为人行为的性质是职务 侵占、侵占还是盗窃 。 第四部分， 争议与分歧意见。对于本案， 司法人员基于不同的理由提 出了四种意见：有人认为行为人的行为构成职务侵占罪，有人认为行为人 的行为构成侵占罪，有人认为行为人的行为构成盗窃罪，亦有人认为行为 人的行为不构成犯罪。 第五部分 ，法理分析。这 是文章的重点 。 首先， 文章从刑法有关职务 侵占罪、侵占罪、盗窃罪构成要件的规定和不同司法人员对案例的定 性意 见及理由， 以案例为代表， 引出 职务侵占罪、侵占罪、盗窃罪 在 区别适用 时 争议 的 焦点在于 职务侵占罪的主体范围 职务侵占罪 、侵占罪、盗窃 罪客观方面的“利用职务上便利”、“非法占为己有”、“代为保管”、“拒不 退还”、“占有”等客观特征的内涵与外延，职务侵占罪、侵占罪、盗窃罪 之间的联系与区别 。 其次，文章围绕争议的焦点从三个方面进行学理分析。 第一方面，职务侵占罪的主体范围。 虽然刑法第 271 条明确规定了职务侵 占罪的主体范围，但受习惯思维 等因素 的影响，理论界与司法实践中 出现 2 了几种片面的观点。文章从不同角度有力批驳了 了几种片面的观点。文章从不同角度有力批驳了这些这些错错误观点误观点，，同时同时又又从从刑事立法的沿革、刑法条款设置技术、法律解释方法及原则三个角度对职刑事立法的沿革、刑法条款设置技术、法律解释方法及原则三个角度对职务侵占罪的主体范围进行了务侵占罪的主体范围进行了具体的阐述具体的阐述。。第二方面，职务侵占罪、侵占罪、第二方面，职务侵占罪、侵占罪、盗窃罪的客观方面。盗窃罪的客观方面。文章以案例在客观方面的争议焦点为线索，文章以案例在客观方面的争议焦点为线索，逐一进行逐一进行对比辨析，对比辨析，侧重实践可操作性考虑，侧重实践可操作性考虑，具体阐述具体阐述了了上述争议焦点的内涵与外上述争议焦点的内涵与外延延。。第三个方面，职务侵占罪、侵占罪、盗窃罪第三个方面，职务侵占罪、侵占罪、盗窃罪的本质区别。文章认为职的本质区别。文章认为职务侵占罪与侵占罪、盗窃罪间的本质区别在于客观方面。其中，区分职务务侵占罪与侵占罪、盗窃罪间的本质区别在于客观方面。其中，区分职务侵占罪与侵占罪的侵占罪与侵占罪的关键关键是判断行为人事先合法占有财物的根据是是判断行为人事先合法占有财物的根据是否基于否基于职务要求，区分职务侵占罪与盗窃罪的关键是判断行为职务要求，区分职务侵占罪与盗窃罪的关键是判断行为人在非法占有财物人在非法占有财物时有无假借职务上合法占有财物的形式，区分侵占罪与盗窃罪的关键是判时有无假借职务上合法占有财物的形式，区分侵占罪与盗窃罪的关键是判断行为人在非法获得财物时该财物受谁的占有控制。断行为人在非法获得财物时该财物受谁的占有控制。 第六部分 第六部分，结论。在结合第五部分分析的基础上，，结论。在结合第五部分分析的基础上，文章认为案例文章认为案例中中行行为人为人虽然虽然符合职务侵占罪的主体要件，但符合职务侵占罪的主体要件，但是是，，客观上不具备事先占有的侵客观上不具备事先占有的侵占要件和假借职务形式的职务侵占要件，只具有利用工作关系占要件和假借职务形式的职务侵占要件，只具有利用工作关系之之容易接近容易接近单位财物的便利单位财物的便利，实施的是，实施的是盗窃行为，盗窃行为，故只故只构成盗窃罪。构成盗窃罪。

学科：

法律*

提交日期：

2025-11-17

引用参考：

杨少萍. 职务侵占罪、侵占罪，还是盗窃罪？[D]. 西南政法大学,2008.

全文附件授权许可：

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 职务侵占罪、侵占罪，还是盗窃罪？
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 05334120100920
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 杨少萍
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 法学院
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法律硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2008
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 马家福
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 法学院
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 职务侵占 ;主体;利用职务上便利;非法占为己有;代为保管;拒不退还;占有
  • dc.subject
  • the state personals embezzlement;the subject; the convenience of duties;illegal occupation;custodial keeping;the refusal;occupation
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 97 《刑法》增设 侵占罪、职务侵占罪后， 学界 主要围绕侵占罪、职务 侵占罪的四个构成要件展开 研究 ，对职务侵占罪、侵占罪、盗窃罪相互间 的区分也有研究，但是，这些研究 总是一些概括性的表述，不能涵盖或者 说甄别、指导所有千变万化的实践案件。 随着连锁企业在我国由导入期进 入发展期，如何界定连锁企业等新型企业员工范围、如何保障个体工商户 的利益，已成为处理具体案件面临的法律适用难题。为此，文章在选择一 个具体案例的基础上， 以案例涉及的争议焦点为线索， 集中探讨职务侵占 罪的主体范围、 三罪的客观特征、三罪的区分关键等三 个 方面问题 以期 为司法实践中处理类似案件 、 解决职务侵占罪、侵占罪、盗窃罪的法律适 用问题提供有益的帮助 。 全文分六个部 分，约 3 4 000 字。 第一部分， 案由。 简单阐明案例涉嫌的 罪 名 是职务侵占罪。 第二部分， 案情。 根据案件的 时间 发展顺序，详细叙明案情 及与定 性有关的行为、情节。 第三部分， 案件焦点。 点明案 例 的焦点在于行为人行为的性质是职务 侵占、侵占还是盗窃 。 第四部分， 争议与分歧意见。对于本案， 司法人员基于不同的理由提 出了四种意见：有人认为行为人的行为构成职务侵占罪，有人认为行为人 的行为构成侵占罪，有人认为行为人的行为构成盗窃罪，亦有人认为行为 人的行为不构成犯罪。 第五部分 ，法理分析。这 是文章的重点 。 首先， 文章从刑法有关职务 侵占罪、侵占罪、盗窃罪构成要件的规定和不同司法人员对案例的定 性意 见及理由， 以案例为代表， 引出 职务侵占罪、侵占罪、盗窃罪 在 区别适用 时 争议 的 焦点在于 职务侵占罪的主体范围 职务侵占罪 、侵占罪、盗窃 罪客观方面的“利用职务上便利”、“非法占为己有”、“代为保管”、“拒不 退还”、“占有”等客观特征的内涵与外延，职务侵占罪、侵占罪、盗窃罪 之间的联系与区别 。 其次，文章围绕争议的焦点从三个方面进行学理分析。 第一方面，职务侵占罪的主体范围。 虽然刑法第 271 条明确规定了职务侵 占罪的主体范围，但受习惯思维 等因素 的影响，理论界与司法实践中 出现 2 了几种片面的观点。文章从不同角度有力批驳了 了几种片面的观点。文章从不同角度有力批驳了这些这些错错误观点误观点，，同时同时又又从从刑事立法的沿革、刑法条款设置技术、法律解释方法及原则三个角度对职刑事立法的沿革、刑法条款设置技术、法律解释方法及原则三个角度对职务侵占罪的主体范围进行了务侵占罪的主体范围进行了具体的阐述具体的阐述。。第二方面，职务侵占罪、侵占罪、第二方面，职务侵占罪、侵占罪、盗窃罪的客观方面。盗窃罪的客观方面。文章以案例在客观方面的争议焦点为线索，文章以案例在客观方面的争议焦点为线索，逐一进行逐一进行对比辨析，对比辨析，侧重实践可操作性考虑，侧重实践可操作性考虑，具体阐述具体阐述了了上述争议焦点的内涵与外上述争议焦点的内涵与外延延。。第三个方面，职务侵占罪、侵占罪、盗窃罪第三个方面，职务侵占罪、侵占罪、盗窃罪的本质区别。文章认为职的本质区别。文章认为职务侵占罪与侵占罪、盗窃罪间的本质区别在于客观方面。其中，区分职务务侵占罪与侵占罪、盗窃罪间的本质区别在于客观方面。其中，区分职务侵占罪与侵占罪的侵占罪与侵占罪的关键关键是判断行为人事先合法占有财物的根据是是判断行为人事先合法占有财物的根据是否基于否基于职务要求，区分职务侵占罪与盗窃罪的关键是判断行为职务要求，区分职务侵占罪与盗窃罪的关键是判断行为人在非法占有财物人在非法占有财物时有无假借职务上合法占有财物的形式，区分侵占罪与盗窃罪的关键是判时有无假借职务上合法占有财物的形式，区分侵占罪与盗窃罪的关键是判断行为人在非法获得财物时该财物受谁的占有控制。断行为人在非法获得财物时该财物受谁的占有控制。 第六部分 第六部分，结论。在结合第五部分分析的基础上，，结论。在结合第五部分分析的基础上，文章认为案例文章认为案例中中行行为人为人虽然虽然符合职务侵占罪的主体要件，但符合职务侵占罪的主体要件，但是是，，客观上不具备事先占有的侵客观上不具备事先占有的侵占要件和假借职务形式的职务侵占要件，只具有利用工作关系占要件和假借职务形式的职务侵占要件，只具有利用工作关系之之容易接近容易接近单位财物的便利单位财物的便利，实施的是，实施的是盗窃行为，盗窃行为，故只故只构成盗窃罪。构成盗窃罪。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • S ince the suppl ements of the embezzlement and the crime with the specified duties the academia in the criminal law had brought about the two crimes over their four constituted elements and the differences between them. H owever, all of these studies stay on the level of t he general summaries which could not cover or distinguish the diversity in the changeable cases in the practices. With the introduction and development of the chains enterprises in China, the questions of how to definite the ranges of the workers in these companies and how to protect the interest s of these individual industries and commercials become the difficulties in the legal application in the detail cases. T herefore, this dissertation selects a specified case as the ground and the concerning deputes a s the clue to elaborate the following three questions intensively: the domain of the subjects in state personals embezzlement, the objective aspects and the differences of the tree crimes in order to provide some beneficial helps of the legal applications in the state personals and the general embezzlements and the thefts in the judicial practices T he whole text is divided into the six parts which are totally 34000 words. P art one is the brief of this case that the author interpreter the crime is the state personals embezzlement chiefly. P art two is the facts of the case which the author elaborates the facts, the actions and the relative motives and actions according to the time sequences. P art three is the focus of the case that the qualities of the actio n by the suspicion are whether matched by the elements the state personals, the general embezzlement or the theft. Part four is talking about the disputes and the discords about the case. I n the view of the different jurisprudential theories the judges giv e four opinions as following : one is that the action should be convicted as the state personals embezzlement; two is the general embezzlement; three is the theft and the rest consider that the suspicion in this case is not guilty. 2 P Part five is the jurispruart five is the jurisprudential analysis on the case which is the key point dential analysis on the case which is the key point of this paper. of this paper. AAt first the author based on the relative regulations about the two t first the author based on the relative regulations about the two embezzlementsembezzlements and the theftand the theft’’s s criminalcriminal constitutedconstituted elements and the judgeselements and the judges’’ opinions introduces the core of the differencopinions introduces the core of the differences between them as the case es between them as the case exhibited: the domain of the subjects in three exhibited: the domain of the subjects in three crimescrimes and the objective aspects and the objective aspects as the following concepts as as the following concepts as ““with the with the convenientconvenient dutiesduties””, the , the ““illegal illegal occupations”occupations” and the and the ““custodial keepingcustodial keeping””, the , the ““refusalsrefusals”” and the and the ““occupationoccupationss””. . SSecondly the paper analyzes the hot issues form the three econdly the paper analyzes the hot issues form the three aspects aspects theoreticallytheoretically. . OOne is that the ranges of the subjects in state personals ne is that the ranges of the subjects in state personals embezzlement. embezzlement. TThrough the Article 271 states hrough the Article 271 states the definition of the the definition of the subjects the subjects the several disputes still exist in tseveral disputes still exist in the theoretical and practical areas owing to the he theoretical and practical areas owing to the customs and such other factors. customs and such other factors. TThe author retorts these opinions from the he author retorts these opinions from the different aspects and at the same time different aspects and at the same time elaborateselaborates the ranges from the three the ranges from the three perspectives such as the legislated reforms, the provisioperspectives such as the legislated reforms, the provisions of the ns of the criminalcriminal law law and theand the method of the method of the interpretationsinterpretations and the principles on the and the principles on the crimescrimes. . TTwo is wo is that the objective aspects of these that the objective aspects of these crimescrimes. . TThe paper distinguishes the core he paper distinguishes the core differencesdifferences step by step by the disputed focuses as the clue. step by step by the disputed focuses as the clue. TThree is that three is that the he essentialessential differencesdifferences between the crimes. between the crimes. TThe author consider that the key he author consider that the key point of the diversity in these crimes are the different objective aspects which point of the diversity in these crimes are the different objective aspects which the key judgments are the following standards: that is the demand of the duties the key judgments are the following standards: that is the demand of the duties is the line betweis the line between the legal or en the legal or illegalillegal occupations in the two embezzlements; occupations in the two embezzlements; and the fraud form is the line between the state personals embezzlement and and the fraud form is the line between the state personals embezzlement and the theft when the illegal occupations appeared and the real occupation and the theft when the illegal occupations appeared and the real occupation and controls over the properties is the line bcontrols over the properties is the line between the embezzlement and the theft etween the embezzlement and the theft when the one get these when the one get these prosperitiesprosperities.. P Part six is the conclusion that is based on the former five parts, the author art six is the conclusion that is based on the former five parts, the author consider that the suspicion in the case above is fit for the subject element of consider that the suspicion in the case above is fit for the subject element of state personal embezzlestate personal embezzlement but the there is no occupation in advanced as the ment but the there is no occupation in advanced as the occupied form and the faked or fraud duty as the state personals occupied form and the faked or fraud duty as the state personals embezzlement’sembezzlement’s element and he element and he justjust impinges the common properties impinges the common properties withwith the thecon veniences of his working identity , hereby that it should b e convicted as the theft.
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2025-11-17
回到顶部