论文部分内容阅读
对于不法原因给付的财产,民法理论及立法大都否认给付者有返还请求权,但现今的审判实践及理论有限度地承认了给付者的返还请求权。对于受托者将财物据为己有的,能否成立刑法上的侵占罪,各国立法并没有特别规定,刑法理论及审判实践的多数观点持肯定说。对于民法上不得要求返还的不法原因给付财产,如果刑法上将侵占该财产的行为认定为侵占罪,这会导致在民法上不值得保护的利益刑法又加以保护。在违法性问题上,是采取违法一元论还是违法相对论,是解决该问题的关键点。刑法、民法由于其任务、性质存在差异,保护的客体并非全然一致,民法注重的是对权利、利益的保护,而刑法更注重的是社会秩序的维持,财产犯罪的保护对象从本权说向占有说、从法律的财产说向经济的财产说的转变就说明了这一点。基于此,应当抛开民法对财产的保护,承认侵占不法原因给付的财产成立侵占罪。
The law of civil law and most of the legislation on the law of unlawful reasons have denied that the payer has the right to request a return, but today’s trial practice and theory have limited the rights of the payer to return. For the trustee will belongings for their own possession, the criminal law on the embezzlement can not be established, the national legislation and no special provisions, the criminal law theory and trial practice of the majority view with affirmative. For the unlawful reason that the civil law can not claim the return of the property to pay for property, if the criminal law will encroach on the property behavior as embezzlement, which will lead to civil law not worth protecting the protection of criminal law. On the question of illegality, whether to take the unilateral law of illegality or the law of relativity is the key point to solve this problem. Criminal law and civil law have different nature due to their different tasks. The object of protection is not the same. The civil law emphasizes the protection of rights and interests. Criminal law pays more attention to the maintenance of social order. Possession says that the shift from legal property to economic property illustrates that. Based on this, the protection of property should be put aside by civil law and the embezzlement should be recognized as an offense of encroachment on the property that has been encroached upon by reason of unjust cause.