故意毁坏财物罪之“毁坏”分析
|
摘要
我国现行刑法和司法解释并未对故意毁坏财物罪的“毁坏”方式进行详细说明,如何确立“毁坏”的标准是一件很难的事情,因为现实中的毁坏形式千差万别,这导致学界不同的界定,实践中也没有相对统一的标准。对“毁坏”不能正确定义将导致对于故意毁坏财物罪的认定在某些情况下很难区分罪与非罪,一旦认定错误将会给被害人造成重大的财产损失,或者使得某些违法者逍遥法外,这对被害人或行为人都将是极大的不公。
本文从故意毁坏财物罪行为本质出发,分析了传统的故意毁坏财物罪的不足,从中找出传统故意毁坏财物罪所面临的一些问题,通过对比国外和国内学说及立法规定进行了总结,分析了故意毁坏财物罪的行为——“毁坏”的内涵和外延,最终提出要在立法上完善该罪的罪名和罪状,使之更加科学,更有利于实践的认定。
As the necessary component of the Crime against Property, the Crime of Intentional Damage of Properties play important role for the protection of the ownership of Property and the stability of society. There is a big controversy in theory, the main controversy crime against the“damage”is defined, the scope of property and the relevant judicial determination. The most important should be to“destroy”the identification, because the“damage”has determined that the most essential nature of the offense, determines how to correctly distinguish the crime of crimes in non-crimes, the crimes and other crimes. China’s current criminal law and judicial interpretation is not on the crime of intentionally destroying property“damage”method detailed instructions on how to establish“damage”standard is a difficult thing, because in reality the damage of the very different forms. This also led to a different definition of academic,there is no uniform standard in practice. The“damage”can not be defined correctly will lead to the crime of deliberate damage of property identified problems, once identified the error will give the perpetrator causing property and personal penalties, or making some of impunity that, this is the perpetrator or the victim will be the most great injustice. To this end, the author from various angles, combined with the crime of existing theory and analysis of foreign legislation, and also combines the characteristics of the crime and the reality that there is some“damage”situation from the“damage”the connotation and extension discussed, specifically the concept and put forward a number of legislative measures to improve, to better help identify criminal law practice.
This article is divided into four chapters, as follows:
The first chapter provides an overview of crime of intentional damage. Start trace the origin of legislation, our country comes from the deliberate damage of property crimes are the provisions of the Criminal Code of 1979, while the existing criminal law to the original criminal offense of willful damage of property made substantive changes to increase the range of different legal punishment, but the new law Simple counts did not modify the“damage”, including what the specific circumstances not specified. As there is no uniform standard, to be grasped by the practice, which not only increases the difficulty of the determination of the crime, but also led to the definition of doctrinal difference. Meanwhile, the crime against the current position in criminal law analysis, that“damage”is“made”to distinguish an act against property; In addition, there are different criminal legal interests of the damage. This makes the crime of intentional damage of property more difficult to identify.
The second chapter discussed the definition of“damage”on foreign and domestic“damage”in the way of behavior and results. For foreign“damage”of, from the civil law and common law provisions and the legislative set theory, in particular the civil law of the“damage”has a more specific theory of the distinction between deep meanings. In China, the“damage”is inclined to“Against Utility Theory”. However, some scholars hold different views, with“devastating”to define the crime, but the methods have no reasonable standards, and not feasible. At the same time, this chapter also points out the problems faced by existing theories, Three civil law doctrine,the provisions of common law and our view has shortcomings of existing, Either too broad or too narrow, or there is no reasonable standard. These has led to "damage" is defined in a certain degree of ambiguity, not well reveal the "damage" true nature.
The third chapter focuses on how unequivocal“damage”concept. First, explicitly“damaging”concept must fully consider correctly conviction also focus submissiveness also consider the judicial practice flexibility. Secondly focus discusses how clear“damage”, from destroyed connotation and extension perspective find its essential character. We must break through the traditional“damage”should be on their way to certain restrictions. Therefore, the meaning should be clear from the damage of behavior and results analysis approach, and explicitly“damage”standard. we should sum the lack of“Against Utility Theory”,on this basis, be limited, We should be starting the damage acts harmful to society, the damage is different from the ordinary civil law acts, varying degrees of damage and should be classified. Severe destruction is serious destructive; damage, pollution, etc., to a relatively weak, but also has some devastating, However, the impact on the property not seriously than destroy, For the paste, apply effects such as appearance of such behavior should be judged as not a serious social harm, although these actions caused actual harm or a real threat, but not significant, and will not cause harm to the legal interest should be excluded from the damage outside. In addition, in association with destruction of whether recoverable as a standard to judge, should have the characteristics of the behavior of criminal damage were removed from the offense, in addition, in association with damage of whether recoverable as a standard to judge, should have the characteristics of the behavior of criminal damage were removed from the offense, clear the scope of criminal damage. As the damage type of crime is different from the type of crime to obtain some of the features, for some between the edge of damage of criminal and civil actions shall be in accordance with its recoverability determine whether the damage, which is different from civil damage actions. Also, because Article 13 of the Criminal Code but also to refine the requirements of the offense and the blocking of the“Against Utility Theory”the definition too broad to provide a reference, it should be the standard to judge with the existing legislation. As for the“damage”of the extension should be appropriately expanded, due to damage of the property subject to different ways to vary their damage. On the personal computer to delete, modify, add operation, to kill or harm others animals, selling other securities damage act, hide such behavior is also a kind of damage.
The fourth chapter presented "damage" is the core of the crime. Specifically the "damage" the connotation and extension will inevitably lead to legislation to make the appropriate adjustments. The existing criminal law crime of intentional damage of property in legislation faced two major problems: first, the charge is unreasonable; second, counts too simple. This does not reflect all the characteristics of the offense is not conducive to judicial determination. Therefore, the following two aspects should be improved. On the one hand, due to the legislative charge mode selection, it reflects the level of a country's criminal legislation, affecting the quality of the activities of the conviction. Intentional destruction of property crime offenses should be appropriately amended to deliberately damage property crime. "Damage" is better than "destroy" by interpretation of the nature of the crime, also consistent with the legislative intent of the crime. On the other hand, the simple crime of intentional destruction of property provision is not targeted, So is the lack of general requirement crude workable, will lead the French Open depopulation, the law should not meet the rigor, and clarity requirements, the consequences are either good at breaking cause of justice, or result in omission of crime, lack of crime punishment, civil liberties have been violated, the rights of the people ultimately can not be guaranteed. Therefore, simple counts should be available to prove the guilt, to make it more consistent with the times, and more conducive to practice identified.
本文从故意毁坏财物罪行为本质出发,分析了传统的故意毁坏财物罪的不足,从中找出传统故意毁坏财物罪所面临的一些问题,通过对比国外和国内学说及立法规定进行了总结,分析了故意毁坏财物罪的行为——“毁坏”的内涵和外延,最终提出要在立法上完善该罪的罪名和罪状,使之更加科学,更有利于实践的认定。
As the necessary component of the Crime against Property, the Crime of Intentional Damage of Properties play important role for the protection of the ownership of Property and the stability of society. There is a big controversy in theory, the main controversy crime against the“damage”is defined, the scope of property and the relevant judicial determination. The most important should be to“destroy”the identification, because the“damage”has determined that the most essential nature of the offense, determines how to correctly distinguish the crime of crimes in non-crimes, the crimes and other crimes. China’s current criminal law and judicial interpretation is not on the crime of intentionally destroying property“damage”method detailed instructions on how to establish“damage”standard is a difficult thing, because in reality the damage of the very different forms. This also led to a different definition of academic,there is no uniform standard in practice. The“damage”can not be defined correctly will lead to the crime of deliberate damage of property identified problems, once identified the error will give the perpetrator causing property and personal penalties, or making some of impunity that, this is the perpetrator or the victim will be the most great injustice. To this end, the author from various angles, combined with the crime of existing theory and analysis of foreign legislation, and also combines the characteristics of the crime and the reality that there is some“damage”situation from the“damage”the connotation and extension discussed, specifically the concept and put forward a number of legislative measures to improve, to better help identify criminal law practice.
This article is divided into four chapters, as follows:
The first chapter provides an overview of crime of intentional damage. Start trace the origin of legislation, our country comes from the deliberate damage of property crimes are the provisions of the Criminal Code of 1979, while the existing criminal law to the original criminal offense of willful damage of property made substantive changes to increase the range of different legal punishment, but the new law Simple counts did not modify the“damage”, including what the specific circumstances not specified. As there is no uniform standard, to be grasped by the practice, which not only increases the difficulty of the determination of the crime, but also led to the definition of doctrinal difference. Meanwhile, the crime against the current position in criminal law analysis, that“damage”is“made”to distinguish an act against property; In addition, there are different criminal legal interests of the damage. This makes the crime of intentional damage of property more difficult to identify.
The second chapter discussed the definition of“damage”on foreign and domestic“damage”in the way of behavior and results. For foreign“damage”of, from the civil law and common law provisions and the legislative set theory, in particular the civil law of the“damage”has a more specific theory of the distinction between deep meanings. In China, the“damage”is inclined to“Against Utility Theory”. However, some scholars hold different views, with“devastating”to define the crime, but the methods have no reasonable standards, and not feasible. At the same time, this chapter also points out the problems faced by existing theories, Three civil law doctrine,the provisions of common law and our view has shortcomings of existing, Either too broad or too narrow, or there is no reasonable standard. These has led to "damage" is defined in a certain degree of ambiguity, not well reveal the "damage" true nature.
The third chapter focuses on how unequivocal“damage”concept. First, explicitly“damaging”concept must fully consider correctly conviction also focus submissiveness also consider the judicial practice flexibility. Secondly focus discusses how clear“damage”, from destroyed connotation and extension perspective find its essential character. We must break through the traditional“damage”should be on their way to certain restrictions. Therefore, the meaning should be clear from the damage of behavior and results analysis approach, and explicitly“damage”standard. we should sum the lack of“Against Utility Theory”,on this basis, be limited, We should be starting the damage acts harmful to society, the damage is different from the ordinary civil law acts, varying degrees of damage and should be classified. Severe destruction is serious destructive; damage, pollution, etc., to a relatively weak, but also has some devastating, However, the impact on the property not seriously than destroy, For the paste, apply effects such as appearance of such behavior should be judged as not a serious social harm, although these actions caused actual harm or a real threat, but not significant, and will not cause harm to the legal interest should be excluded from the damage outside. In addition, in association with destruction of whether recoverable as a standard to judge, should have the characteristics of the behavior of criminal damage were removed from the offense, in addition, in association with damage of whether recoverable as a standard to judge, should have the characteristics of the behavior of criminal damage were removed from the offense, clear the scope of criminal damage. As the damage type of crime is different from the type of crime to obtain some of the features, for some between the edge of damage of criminal and civil actions shall be in accordance with its recoverability determine whether the damage, which is different from civil damage actions. Also, because Article 13 of the Criminal Code but also to refine the requirements of the offense and the blocking of the“Against Utility Theory”the definition too broad to provide a reference, it should be the standard to judge with the existing legislation. As for the“damage”of the extension should be appropriately expanded, due to damage of the property subject to different ways to vary their damage. On the personal computer to delete, modify, add operation, to kill or harm others animals, selling other securities damage act, hide such behavior is also a kind of damage.
The fourth chapter presented "damage" is the core of the crime. Specifically the "damage" the connotation and extension will inevitably lead to legislation to make the appropriate adjustments. The existing criminal law crime of intentional damage of property in legislation faced two major problems: first, the charge is unreasonable; second, counts too simple. This does not reflect all the characteristics of the offense is not conducive to judicial determination. Therefore, the following two aspects should be improved. On the one hand, due to the legislative charge mode selection, it reflects the level of a country's criminal legislation, affecting the quality of the activities of the conviction. Intentional destruction of property crime offenses should be appropriately amended to deliberately damage property crime. "Damage" is better than "destroy" by interpretation of the nature of the crime, also consistent with the legislative intent of the crime. On the other hand, the simple crime of intentional destruction of property provision is not targeted, So is the lack of general requirement crude workable, will lead the French Open depopulation, the law should not meet the rigor, and clarity requirements, the consequences are either good at breaking cause of justice, or result in omission of crime, lack of crime punishment, civil liberties have been violated, the rights of the people ultimately can not be guaranteed. Therefore, simple counts should be available to prove the guilt, to make it more consistent with the times, and more conducive to practice identified.
引文
1.史书:《析危害公共安全罪的“公共安全”》,《长沙民政职业技术学院学报》2008年第3期,第39页。
2.参见赵秉志主编:《外国刑法各论》,中国人民大学出版社2006年第1版,第252页。
3.赵秉志主编:《外国刑法各论》,中国人民大学出版社2006年第1版,第253页。
4.参见赵秉志主编:《外国刑法各论》,中国人民大学出版社2006年第1版,第253页。
5.参见赵秉志主编:《外国刑法各论》,中国人民大学出版社2006年第1版,第253页。
6. [英] J·C·史密斯、B·霍根:《英国刑法》,李贵方等译,法律出版社2000年第1版,第794-796页。
7.参见张明楷:《刑法学》,法律出版社2007年第3版,第750页。
8.参见丁天球《:侵犯财产罪重点疑点难点问题判解研究》,人民法院出版社2005年第1版,第471页。
9.参见刘明祥:《财产罪比较研究》,中国政法大学出版社2001年第1版,第425页。
10.参见周光权:《刑法各论讲义》,清华大学出版社2003年第1版,第148页。
11.参见陈兴良:《故意毁坏财物行为之定性研究——以朱建勇案和孙静案为线索的分析》,《国家检察官学院学报》2009年第1期,第100-101页。
12.参见储槐植:《刑事一体化》,法律出版社2004年第1版,第197页。
13.康均心、王敏敏:《刑事立法模糊性基础问题研究》,《北方法学》2009年第2期,第81页。
14.朱勇、陈志英:《法治社会与民刑归责论略》,《河北法学》1995年第3期,第9页。
15.陈兴良:《本体刑法学》,商务印书馆出版社2001年第1版,第76页。
16. [意]菲利:《犯罪学》,郭建安译,中国人民公安大学出版社1990年第1版,第68页。
17.孙昌军、徐绫泽:《论小康社会私有财产的刑法保护》,《湖南文理学院学报(社会科学版)》2005年第2期,第99页。
18.参见[意]贝卡里亚:《论犯罪与刑罚》,黄风译,中国大百科全书出版社1993年第1版,第67页。
19.参见姚兵:《犯罪构成视野中的社会危害性概念》,《海南大学学报人文社会科学版》2006年第3期,第412页。
20.参见储槐植、张永红:《善待社会危害性观念——从我国刑法第13条但书说起》,《法学研究》2002年第3期,第92页。
21.参见赵秉志主编:《英美刑法学》,中国人民大学出版社2004年第1版,第421页。
22.陈金钊主编:《法理学》,北京大学出版社2002年第1版,第107页。
23.参见丁天球:《侵犯财产罪重点疑点难点问题判解研究》,人民法院出版社2005年第1版,第476页。
24.参见陈兴良:《故意毁坏财物行为之定性研究——以朱建勇案和孙静案为线索的分析》,《国家检察官学院学报》2009年第1期,第96页。
25.赵秉志主编:《刑法基础理论探索》,法律出版社2003年第1版,第20-26页。
26.转引自刘艳红:《罪名确定的科学性》,《法学研究》1998年第6期,第78页。
27.刘守芬:《刑法学概论》,北京大学出版社2000年第1版,第254页。
28.参见李洁:《罪与刑立法规定模式》,北京大学出版社2008年第1版,第12页。
29.丁华宇:《刑法中的兜底性条款探析》,《黑龙江省政法管理干部学院学报》2009年第4期,第56页。
1. [意]菲利:《犯罪学》,郭建安译,中国人民公安大学出版社1990年第1版。
2. [英]J·C·史密斯、B·霍根:《英国刑法》,李贵方译,法律出版社2000年第1版。
3. [意]贝卡里亚:《论犯罪与刑罚》,黄风译,中国法制出版社2002年第1版。
4. [日]西田典之:《日本刑法各论》,刘明祥等译,武汉大学出版社2005年第1版。
5.高铭暄主编:《刑法专论》,高等教育出版社2002年第1版。
6.周光权:《刑法各论讲义》,清华大学出版社2003年第1版。
7.储槐植:《刑事一体化》,法律出版社2004年第1版。
8.陈兴良:《本体刑法学》,商务印书馆出版社2001年第1版。
9.赵秉志主编:《外国刑法各论》,中国人民大学出版社2006年第1版。
10.张明楷:《刑法学》,法律出版社2007年第3版。
11.赵秉志主编:《英美刑法学》,中国人民大学出版社2004年第1版。
12.陈金钊主编:《法理学》,北京大学出版社2002年第1版。
13.赵秉志主编:《刑法基础理论探索》,法律出版社2003年第1版。
14.刘守芬:《刑法学概论》,北京大学出版社2000年第1版。
15.李洁:《罪与刑立法规定模式》,北京大学出版社2008年第1版。
16.高铭暄主编:《新型经济犯罪研究》,中国方正出版社2000年第1版。
17.姜伟:《犯罪形态通论》,法律出版社1994年第1版。
18.赵秉志主编:《侵犯财产罪研究》,中国法制出版社1998年第1版。
19.陈兴良:《刑法的价值构造》,中国人民大学出版社1998年第1版。
20.陈正云:《刑法的精神》,中国方正出版社1999年第1版。
21.张明楷:《外国刑法纲要》,清华大学出版社1999年第1版。
22.赵秉志主编:《外国刑法原理》,中国人民大学出版社2000年第1版。
23.苏惠渔主编:《刑法学》,中国政法大学出版社1997年版。
24.陈兴良:《刑法哲学》,中国政法大学出版社1992年版。
25.赵秉志主编:《刑法总论问题研究》,法律出版社2002年第1版。
26.张明楷:《法益初论》,中国政法大学出版社2000年版。
27.刘明祥:《财产罪比较研究》,中国政法大学出版社2001年第1版。
28.丁天球:《侵犯财产罪重点疑点难点问题判解研究》,人民法院出版社2005年第1版。
1.陈兴良:《故意毁坏财物行为之定性研究——以朱建勇案和孙静案为线索的分析》,《国家检察官学院学报》2009年第1期。
2.孙昌军、徐绫泽:《论小康社会私有财产的刑法保护》,《湖南文理学院学报(社会科学版)》2005年第2期。
3.康均心、王敏敏:《刑事立法模糊性基础问题研究》,《北方法学》2009年第2期。
4.朱勇、陈志英:《法治社会与民刑归责论略》,《河北法学》1995年第3期。
5.姚兵:《犯罪构成视野中的社会危害性概念》,《海南大学学报人文社会科学版》2006年9月第3期。
6.储槐植、张永红:《善待社会危害性观念——从我国刑法第13条但书说起》,《法学研究》2002年第3期。
7.黎宏:《论放火罪的若干问题》,《法商研究》2005年第3期。
8.刘艳红:《罪名确定的科学性》,《法学研究》1998年第6期。
9.李飞:《论虚拟财产的民法保护》,《法制与社会》2008年第11期。
10.叶慧娟:《网络虚拟财产的刑法定位》,《东方法学》2008年第3期。
11.高维俭:《刑法情节的基本概念与适用规范探究》,《人民检察》2009年第1期。
12.胡和平:《故意毁坏财物罪与盗窃罪、抢劫罪的财产价格认定问题探讨》,《经济与法》2007年第1期。
13.王震、范伟:《试论故意毁坏财物罪的客观方面及犯罪对象》,《黑龙江省政法管理干部学院学报》2009年第4期。
14.刘明祥:《刑法中的非法占有目的》,《法学研究》2000年第2期。
15.郭玉军、黄旭巍:《毁损美术作品的刑法思考》,《现代法学》2003年第3期。
16.史书:《析危害公共安全罪的“公共安全”》,《长沙民政职业技术学院学报》2008年第3期。
17.丁华宇:《刑法中的兜底性条款探析》,《黑龙江省政法管理干部学院学报》2009年第4期。
2.参见赵秉志主编:《外国刑法各论》,中国人民大学出版社2006年第1版,第252页。
3.赵秉志主编:《外国刑法各论》,中国人民大学出版社2006年第1版,第253页。
4.参见赵秉志主编:《外国刑法各论》,中国人民大学出版社2006年第1版,第253页。
5.参见赵秉志主编:《外国刑法各论》,中国人民大学出版社2006年第1版,第253页。
6. [英] J·C·史密斯、B·霍根:《英国刑法》,李贵方等译,法律出版社2000年第1版,第794-796页。
7.参见张明楷:《刑法学》,法律出版社2007年第3版,第750页。
8.参见丁天球《:侵犯财产罪重点疑点难点问题判解研究》,人民法院出版社2005年第1版,第471页。
9.参见刘明祥:《财产罪比较研究》,中国政法大学出版社2001年第1版,第425页。
10.参见周光权:《刑法各论讲义》,清华大学出版社2003年第1版,第148页。
11.参见陈兴良:《故意毁坏财物行为之定性研究——以朱建勇案和孙静案为线索的分析》,《国家检察官学院学报》2009年第1期,第100-101页。
12.参见储槐植:《刑事一体化》,法律出版社2004年第1版,第197页。
13.康均心、王敏敏:《刑事立法模糊性基础问题研究》,《北方法学》2009年第2期,第81页。
14.朱勇、陈志英:《法治社会与民刑归责论略》,《河北法学》1995年第3期,第9页。
15.陈兴良:《本体刑法学》,商务印书馆出版社2001年第1版,第76页。
16. [意]菲利:《犯罪学》,郭建安译,中国人民公安大学出版社1990年第1版,第68页。
17.孙昌军、徐绫泽:《论小康社会私有财产的刑法保护》,《湖南文理学院学报(社会科学版)》2005年第2期,第99页。
18.参见[意]贝卡里亚:《论犯罪与刑罚》,黄风译,中国大百科全书出版社1993年第1版,第67页。
19.参见姚兵:《犯罪构成视野中的社会危害性概念》,《海南大学学报人文社会科学版》2006年第3期,第412页。
20.参见储槐植、张永红:《善待社会危害性观念——从我国刑法第13条但书说起》,《法学研究》2002年第3期,第92页。
21.参见赵秉志主编:《英美刑法学》,中国人民大学出版社2004年第1版,第421页。
22.陈金钊主编:《法理学》,北京大学出版社2002年第1版,第107页。
23.参见丁天球:《侵犯财产罪重点疑点难点问题判解研究》,人民法院出版社2005年第1版,第476页。
24.参见陈兴良:《故意毁坏财物行为之定性研究——以朱建勇案和孙静案为线索的分析》,《国家检察官学院学报》2009年第1期,第96页。
25.赵秉志主编:《刑法基础理论探索》,法律出版社2003年第1版,第20-26页。
26.转引自刘艳红:《罪名确定的科学性》,《法学研究》1998年第6期,第78页。
27.刘守芬:《刑法学概论》,北京大学出版社2000年第1版,第254页。
28.参见李洁:《罪与刑立法规定模式》,北京大学出版社2008年第1版,第12页。
29.丁华宇:《刑法中的兜底性条款探析》,《黑龙江省政法管理干部学院学报》2009年第4期,第56页。
1. [意]菲利:《犯罪学》,郭建安译,中国人民公安大学出版社1990年第1版。
2. [英]J·C·史密斯、B·霍根:《英国刑法》,李贵方译,法律出版社2000年第1版。
3. [意]贝卡里亚:《论犯罪与刑罚》,黄风译,中国法制出版社2002年第1版。
4. [日]西田典之:《日本刑法各论》,刘明祥等译,武汉大学出版社2005年第1版。
5.高铭暄主编:《刑法专论》,高等教育出版社2002年第1版。
6.周光权:《刑法各论讲义》,清华大学出版社2003年第1版。
7.储槐植:《刑事一体化》,法律出版社2004年第1版。
8.陈兴良:《本体刑法学》,商务印书馆出版社2001年第1版。
9.赵秉志主编:《外国刑法各论》,中国人民大学出版社2006年第1版。
10.张明楷:《刑法学》,法律出版社2007年第3版。
11.赵秉志主编:《英美刑法学》,中国人民大学出版社2004年第1版。
12.陈金钊主编:《法理学》,北京大学出版社2002年第1版。
13.赵秉志主编:《刑法基础理论探索》,法律出版社2003年第1版。
14.刘守芬:《刑法学概论》,北京大学出版社2000年第1版。
15.李洁:《罪与刑立法规定模式》,北京大学出版社2008年第1版。
16.高铭暄主编:《新型经济犯罪研究》,中国方正出版社2000年第1版。
17.姜伟:《犯罪形态通论》,法律出版社1994年第1版。
18.赵秉志主编:《侵犯财产罪研究》,中国法制出版社1998年第1版。
19.陈兴良:《刑法的价值构造》,中国人民大学出版社1998年第1版。
20.陈正云:《刑法的精神》,中国方正出版社1999年第1版。
21.张明楷:《外国刑法纲要》,清华大学出版社1999年第1版。
22.赵秉志主编:《外国刑法原理》,中国人民大学出版社2000年第1版。
23.苏惠渔主编:《刑法学》,中国政法大学出版社1997年版。
24.陈兴良:《刑法哲学》,中国政法大学出版社1992年版。
25.赵秉志主编:《刑法总论问题研究》,法律出版社2002年第1版。
26.张明楷:《法益初论》,中国政法大学出版社2000年版。
27.刘明祥:《财产罪比较研究》,中国政法大学出版社2001年第1版。
28.丁天球:《侵犯财产罪重点疑点难点问题判解研究》,人民法院出版社2005年第1版。
1.陈兴良:《故意毁坏财物行为之定性研究——以朱建勇案和孙静案为线索的分析》,《国家检察官学院学报》2009年第1期。
2.孙昌军、徐绫泽:《论小康社会私有财产的刑法保护》,《湖南文理学院学报(社会科学版)》2005年第2期。
3.康均心、王敏敏:《刑事立法模糊性基础问题研究》,《北方法学》2009年第2期。
4.朱勇、陈志英:《法治社会与民刑归责论略》,《河北法学》1995年第3期。
5.姚兵:《犯罪构成视野中的社会危害性概念》,《海南大学学报人文社会科学版》2006年9月第3期。
6.储槐植、张永红:《善待社会危害性观念——从我国刑法第13条但书说起》,《法学研究》2002年第3期。
7.黎宏:《论放火罪的若干问题》,《法商研究》2005年第3期。
8.刘艳红:《罪名确定的科学性》,《法学研究》1998年第6期。
9.李飞:《论虚拟财产的民法保护》,《法制与社会》2008年第11期。
10.叶慧娟:《网络虚拟财产的刑法定位》,《东方法学》2008年第3期。
11.高维俭:《刑法情节的基本概念与适用规范探究》,《人民检察》2009年第1期。
12.胡和平:《故意毁坏财物罪与盗窃罪、抢劫罪的财产价格认定问题探讨》,《经济与法》2007年第1期。
13.王震、范伟:《试论故意毁坏财物罪的客观方面及犯罪对象》,《黑龙江省政法管理干部学院学报》2009年第4期。
14.刘明祥:《刑法中的非法占有目的》,《法学研究》2000年第2期。
15.郭玉军、黄旭巍:《毁损美术作品的刑法思考》,《现代法学》2003年第3期。
16.史书:《析危害公共安全罪的“公共安全”》,《长沙民政职业技术学院学报》2008年第3期。
17.丁华宇:《刑法中的兜底性条款探析》,《黑龙江省政法管理干部学院学报》2009年第4期。