论文部分内容阅读
2013年4月3日,“两高”联合发布的解释具体明确了盗窃罪的定罪量刑与相关法律界限,2015年12月,为了进一步规范浙江省盗窃刑事案件的办理,为了给实务界、理论界争议颇大、意见分歧明显的“入户盗窃”、“多次盗窃”、“扒窃”等盗窃罪中疑难复杂的问题作出官方的界定,浙江省出台了《关于办理盗窃刑事案件的若干意见》。笔者认真研读上述意见,结合桐乡市人民检察院办理盗窃案件的实际情况,认为上述意见虽然对“入户盗窃”、“多次盗窃”、“扒窃”做出了较为明确的界定,但上述意见在实际操作中存在可操作性较差、涵盖面窄等问题。故本文结合桐乡市人民检察院办理盗窃案件的现实案例,对该上述意见在实际案件适用过程中的难点进行典型性分析及探讨。
April 3, 2013, “Two Highs ” jointly issued the interpretation of a clear definition of the crime of theft conviction and the relevant legal boundaries, in December 2015, in order to further regulate the theft of Zhejiang Province criminal cases, in order to give the practice sector , The theoretical circles have quite a lot of controversies and the disagreements have obvious official issues such as “home theft”, “multiple theft”, “pickpocketing” and other difficult theft crimes. Zhejiang Province has promulgated the “ Several Opinions on Handling theft of Criminal Cases. ” I carefully study the above comments, combined with the Tongxiang City People’s Procuratorate for the theft of the actual situation, although the views of the “home theft”, “multiple theft”, “pickpocket ” made a more clear However, the above opinions have problems of poor operability and narrow coverage in actual operation. Therefore, this paper combines Tongxiang People’s Procuratorate handling the theft case of the reality of the above comments in the actual case of the difficulties in the process of typical analysis and discussion.