盗用身份证件罪司法认定研究
Research on the Judicial Determination of the Crime of Identity Document Theft
摘要: 盗用身份证件罪的保护法益应当采用复杂客体说,将本罪保护法益确立为身份证件的管理制度和个人身份信息安全法益更具合理性。对盗用身份证件罪中“情节严重”认定要先进行前提要件的判断,“依照国家规定”应当严格限缩在《刑法》第96条规定的范围之内、认定法定种类之外的其他身份证件需严格遵循同类解释的规则、明确“盗用”行为所指向的对象应当是对于身份证件的查验机构而言。盗用身份证件罪中“情节严重”认定标准的具体设置应当采取“数量 + 情节”模式,数量标准确立为盗用他人身份证件三张以上或者累计使用次数达到五次以上,情节标准作为数量标准之补充,行为人虽然未达到前述数量标准,但是具有所列举情节的,仍然构成本罪。
Abstract: The protection of legal interests of the crime of identity document theft should adopt the theory of complex objects, and it is more reasonable to establish the protection of legal interests of this crime as the management system of identity documents and the legal interests of personal identity information security. The determination of “serious circumstances” in the crime of identity document theft should first be judged by the premise elements. In accordance with national regulations that should be strictly limited within the scope of Article 96 of the Criminal Law, the identification of other identity documents other than the statutory types should strictly follow the rules of similar interpretation, and it is clear that the object of “embezzlement” should be for the identification of identity inspection authorities. The specific setting of the identification standard of “serious circumstances” in the crime of identity document theft should adopt the “quantity + plot” mode; the quantity standard is established as the embezzlement of more than three identity cards of others or the cumulative use of more than five times; the plot standard is used as a supplement to the quantity standard; although the actor does not meet the aforementioned quantity standard, it still constitutes this crime if it has the enumerated circumstances.
文章引用:王加贵. 盗用身份证件罪司法认定研究[J]. 法学, 2023, 11(4): 2976-2983. https://doi.org/10.12677/OJLS.2023.114425

参考文献

[1] 陈洪兵. “情节严重”的解释误区及立法反思[J]. 湖南大学学报(社会科学版), 2019, 33(3): 147-155.
[2] 曾国东, 肖宁, 万海富, 等. 上海市检察机关办理妨害身份证件管理犯罪案件情况的调研[J]. 检察调研与指导, 2018(2): 101-105.
[3] 舒洪水, 张晶. 近现代法益理论的发展及其功能化解读[J]. 中国刑事法杂志, 2010(9): 16-23.
[4] 陈家林, 刘洋. 论盗用身份证件罪的客观方面[J]. 广西大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2016, 38(4): 108-114.
[5] 张明楷. 刑法学[M]. 北京: 法律出版社, 2016: 1043.
[6] 陈禹衡. 法秩序统一原理下身份证件类犯罪的刑行衔接优化[J]. 江汉学术, 2022, 41(4): 15-23.
[7] 克劳斯∙罗克辛, 陈璇. 对批判立法之法益概念的检视[J]. 法学评论, 2015, 33(1): 53-67.
[8] 叶前, 王圣志, 等. 割个玉米都要办证: 400多个证困扰人一生[N]. 新华每日电讯, 2014-03-05(009).
[9] 张文显, 主编. 法理学论丛[M]. 北京: 法律出版社, 2019: 163.
[10] 魏昌东, 张涛. 使用虚假身份证件、盗用身份证件罪法教义学解构[J]. 首都师范大学学报(社会科学版), 2018(6): 56-65.
[11] (日)山口厚. 刑法总论[M]. 付立庆, 译. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 2011: 51.
[12] 郎胜. 中华人民共和国刑法释义[M]. 北京: 法律出版社, 2015: 476-477.
[13] 敦宁. 高空抛物罪中“情节严重”的教义学诠释[J]. 河北法学, 2023, 41(3): 62-81.
[14] 高炳辉. 妨害身份证件管理犯罪案件适用法律问题研究[J]. 中国检察官, 2019(3): 30-32.
[15] 赵飞. 关于认定盗用身份证件罪需要注意的几个问题[N]. 山东法制报, 2022-06-17, 第三版: 理论与实务.
[16] 肖友广, 金华捷. 使用虚假身份证件、盗用身份证件罪的司法认定[J]. 犯罪研究, 2017(2): 104-112.
[17] 段阳伟. “受过行政处罚入罪”规定之证成[J]. 河北法学, 2021, 39(1): 88-100.
[18] 卢建平. 为什么说我国已经进入轻罪时代[J]. 中国应用法学, 2022(3): 132-142.