职务侵占罪的刑法教义学分析

Criminal law Doctrinal Analysis of the Crime of Misappropriation in Office

摘要: 职务侵占罪作为我国刑法分则中的一个独立罪名有其存在的必要性与特殊性，其犯罪主体、犯罪客体以及犯罪的客观方面都与其他财产犯罪有着明显的差异，但在司法实务中对上述要件的不同认识直接导致了同类案件定性的差异化，职务侵占罪的犯罪客体存在“单一法益说”与“双重法益说”之争，由犯罪客体延伸到犯罪客观方面尤其是“利用职务上的便利”认识差异方面，在司法实务中如何认识“利用职务上的便利”往往直接决定案件最终的审判结果，主要存在“单一手段说”和“综合手段说”之于“利用职务上的便利”行为类型存在不同的理解。另外，司法实务中对于物流公司快递员将其“经手”的快递窃取行为定性混乱，本文旨在通过对“利用职务上的便利”的实质对此类行为进行定性，从而消除司法实务中对于此类案件同案不同判的情况。

Abstract: As an independent crime in China’s criminal law, the crime of misappropriation has its own necessity and specificity, and its criminal subject, criminal object and objective aspects of the crime have obvious differences from other property crimes, however, the different understanding of the above elements in judicial practice directly leads to the differentiation of the characterization of similar cases, there is a dispute between “single legal interest” and “double legal interest” in the object of crime of misappropriation, the object of the crime extends to the objective aspects of the crime, especially the difference in the understanding of “using the convenience of office”, in practice, how to understand “using the convenience of office” often directly determines the final outcome of the case. There are different understandings of “single means” and "comprehensive means" for the type of “use of official convenience”. In addition, in the judicial practice, the characterization of the logistics company courier stealing deliveries “through” them is confused. The purpose of this article is to characterize such behavior by considering the essence of “using the convenience of one’s position”, so as to eliminate the disparity in judicial practice for such cases.