摘要
随着彩票业的发展,彩票所带来的巨大利益吸引着千万“彩迷”。实际生活中,彩票投注站经营人员(以下称销售人员)绝大多数也是“彩迷”。其中很多的销售人员为了满足自己的利益心,方便自己购买彩票,设法取得了相应的投注站经营权,使其从“游民”变为固定的“彩迷”。但在巨大的利益诱惑驱使下,因其伸手可“投”的便利,其投机心理得到更大“释放”。于是,在侥幸心理的驱使下,一些彩票销售人员便不顾法律规范和行业规则,通过自己经营的投注机大量“空投”彩票,给国家彩票发行管理秩序带来严重的破坏。同时,部分行为人未能如愿中奖,无法归还购彩款,给国家造成了巨大的物质损失。
然而,目前我国对于彩票方面的法律制度、行业规则并不健全。特别是在对销售人员“空投”行为的定性方面,司法实务界和理论界都有很大的争议。有学者认为此类行为根本不构成犯罪,只是民事违约行为,理由是根据罪刑法定原则,不能因为行为人“空投”数额巨大就将其归为犯罪处理,且刑法具有谦抑性,也不能做出对被告人不利的类推适用。所以就目前刑法规制来说,还不能用刑法对该行为进行评价,应用其他法律调整即可;而司法实务界中,大多法院应用刑法对该行为作出了评价,其理由是:该行为具有严重的法益侵害性,且符合犯罪构成的主观故意性,所以应该入罪,理应受到刑法的评价。总之,当前刑法对此类行为规制的不足以及司法实务中的对此的不同处理不利于对犯罪分子处罚,也不利于法制的统一。
在此,笔者对本案行为人的行为分析,主要是建立在当前理论界对此类案件涉及并反映出的相关问题研究的基础上,首先具体分析本案中行为人之行为主体、行为本身法益侵害性、行为结果法益侵害性以及刑法对其评价的切入点和是否该应用刑法评价必要性;其次从犯罪构成理论来分析该行为是否符合我国当前刑法关于犯罪构成的规制,进而对本案引发的争议观点进行归纳和评析;最后结合司法实务中对此类案件的具体处理情况及相关刑法法理,提出自己对本案行为人之行为定性的理解和认识,从而提出对此类案件所反映出的问题的相关预防措施和处理对策、建议。
Along with the development of the while lottery sales soar, brought about by the huge benefit to the lottery attracts 10 million color fan, in real life, lottery betting station management personnel (hereinafter referred to as the "sales personnel) is also the color most fans many of the sales staff in order to satisfy the interests of their heart, convenient buying their own lottery tickets, managed to get the corresponding betting stand right, Make them from the homeless people into fixed color fan but in great benefits temptation, driven by because its stretch one's hand can vote of convenience, the speculative psychology can release more big. And so, in fluky psychology, driven by the lottery sales personnel and some regardless of legal norms and rules of the industry, and by our own business bet the machine a lot to the state lottery, dropped lottery management order bring serious damage. Also, while some of the behavior person wasn't winning, unable to be returned to the country of purchase colour, caused great material loss.
However, at present, China's legal system for the lottery industry rules is not perfect especially in the sales team dropped the qualitative aspects of behavior, the judicial practice and theory is very controversial. Some scholars think that such behaviour was not serious enough to constitute a crime, but the civil contract, reason is according to the behavior, can't because of the principle of a legally prescribed punishment actor huge amount its dropped into crime processing, and with the austerity of criminal law, also can not make a defendant adverse "analogy". So the criminal law regulation, it also can't use to evaluate the behavior of the criminal law, other applications can; the legal adjustment And the judicial practice, most of the behavior of the criminal law court application made evaluation, and the reason for the behavior is: has serious legal interests invasive, And the crime with the subjective intent sex, so should enter sin and deserves to be the criminal law in the current criminal law, evaluation, this sort of behavior and the deficiency of the regulation in the judicial practice this different treatment against crimes punishment, also go against legal system's unification.
In this, the author of this case actor's behavior analysis, major is based on current theoretical involved in such cases and reflect of related problems on the basis of the research, First concrete analysis in this case the behavior of actor main body behavior itself profit violation of sexual behavior law benefits and the criminal law on the non-invasive assessment of the breakthrough point and whether or not the application evaluation necessity of the criminal law; Second from the crime constitution theory to analyze the behavior whether accord with our current criminal law on the crime of this case, and the regulation of the disputes, summarized the views and comments; Finally the paper in the judicial practice in such cases of the specific treatment and related legal principle of the criminal law, and puts forward the behavior of the case of qualitative actor on the understanding and knowledge, and then puts forward in such cases reflects the problems related preventive measures and treatment countermeasures.
引文
2李倩:《“张民浩空打彩票案”法律分析》,兰州大学2010年硕士论文。
3张明楷著:《刑法学基础观念》,中国检察出版社1995年版,第145页。
4韩海军:《盗窃网络虚拟财产的定性研究》,苏州大学2009年硕士论文。
5张明楷著:《刑法学》,法律出版社2003年版,第63页。
6张明楷著:《刑法学》,法律出版社2003年版,第29~30页。
7 (意大利)贝卡利亚著,黄凤译:《论犯罪与刑罚》,中国法制出版社2002年版,第68页。
8丁益均、邹剑锋:《彩票投注站销售人员“赊购”彩票犯罪法理辨析》,载《犯罪研究》2005年第6期。
9陈宁:《彩票销售人员赊购彩票不宜以挪用资金罪定罪处罚》,http://chengninglvshi.blog.163.com,访问日期:2011年5月1日。
10朱有兴著:《预防职务犯罪问题研究》,中国检察出版社出版2004年版,第321页。
11丁益均,邹剑锋:《彩票投注站销售人员“赊购”彩票犯罪法理辨析》,载《犯罪研究》2005年第6期。
1.赵秉志.刑法论丛[M].北京:法律出版社,2008.
2.国家司法考试辅导用书编辑委员会组织.国家司法考试辅导用书[M].北京:法律出版社,2009.
3.[法]卡斯东.斯特法尼等.法国刑法总论精义[M].罗洁珍译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1998.
4.李文胜,钱舫等.扰乱市场秩序罪的认定与处理[M].北京:中国检察出版社,1998.
5.高铭暄.新型经济犯罪研究[M].北京:中国方正出版,2000.
6.于改之.刑民分界论[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2007.
7.王利明.民法学[M].北京:法律出版社,2005.
8.[日]大谷实.刑法总论[M].北京:法律出版社,2003.
9.韩忠谟.法学绪论[M].台湾,台湾韩忠谟教授法学基金会,1994.
10.马克昌.比较刑法原理[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2002.
11.[俄]库兹涅佐娃,佳日科娃.俄罗斯刑法教程(总论)[M].北京:法制出版社,2002.
12.蔡墩铭.刑法总则论文选辑[M].台北:五南图书出版社公司,1984.
13.刘白笔,刘用生.经济刑法学[M].北京:群众出版社,1989.
14. [德]克劳斯.罗克辛.德国刑法学总论[M].北京:法律出版社,2005.
15.[德]考麦夫.法律哲学[M].刘幸义等译,北京:法律出版社,2004.
16.陈兴良.刑法适用总论[M].(上卷),北京:法律出版社,1999.
17.张明楷.刑法学基础观念[M].北京:中国检察出版社,1995.
18.张明楷.刑法学[M].北京:法律出版社,2003.
19. [意]贝卡利亚.论犯罪与刑罚[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2002.
20.朱有兴.预防职务犯罪问题研究[M].北京:中国检察出版社出版社,2004.
1.李成业.论彩票的定义和法律性质[J].法制与经济,2009 (6).
2.韩世远.彩票的法理分析[J].法学,2005 (2).
3.王家宏,杨卫东,刘志民,陆阿明.体育彩票热销的法律审视[J].体育与科学,2000 (21).
4.秦蜻.我国彩票业监管法律问题初探[D].广州:暨南大学,2007.
5.李倩.“张民浩空打彩票案”法律分析[D].兰州:兰州大学,2010.
6.韩海军.盗窃网络虚拟财产的定性研究[D].苏州:苏州大学,2009.
7、丁益均,邹剑锋.彩票投注站销售人员“赊购”彩票犯罪法理辨析[J].犯罪研究,2005(6).
8.陈宁.彩票销售人员赊购彩票不宜以挪用资金罪定罪处罚[EB/OL].httpchengninglvshi.blog.163.com, 2008-4-20/2011-05-01.
9.胡东飞.刑法中类推适用与扩大解释的界限[J].社会科学,2009(6)
10.熊选国,苗有水.如何把握“受委托管理、经营国有财产”的内涵[N].人民法院报,2005-01-19(9).
11.刘明祥.论侵犯财产罪的对象[J].法律科学,1996(6)
12.高仕银.罪刑法定之明确性原则体现初论[J].贵阳学院学报,2007(3)
13.王充.罪刑法定原则论纲[J].法制与社会发展,2005(3)
14.逢锦温.抢劫罪司法认定中若干问题的探讨[J],法学评论,2002(1)
15.金泽刚.论定罪情节与情节犯[J].华东政法学院学报,2000 (10).
16.刘亚丽.论情节犯[J].河南省政法管理干部学院学报2000 (8).
17.刘守芬.情节犯及相关问题研究[J].法学杂志,2003(24).
18.张文.犯罪构成初探[J]..北京大学学报,1984 (10).
19.吴丙新.危险犯分类质疑[J].河北法学,2000(4).
20.江礼华.刑法因果关系新论载[J].国家检察官学院学报,2003(8).