發(fā)布時間：2018-06-17 07:57

  本文選題：非法拘禁 + 索債型��； 參考：《華中師范大學》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著經濟的不斷發(fā)展,人們之間經濟交易日益密切,由此引起的經濟債務糾紛明顯增多,某些債權人缺乏法律意識,在運用私力救濟手段實現債權的時候采取非法扣押、拘禁等手段去討回債務案件層出不窮。我國最高人民法院作出解釋規(guī)定:“行為人為索取高利貸、賭債等法律不予保護的債務,非法扣押、拘禁他人的,依照刑法第二百三十八條定罪處罰”。這一規(guī)定將非法債務明確規(guī)定到了“債務”中去。索債型非法拘禁行為以存在一定的債權債務關系為前提、以索債為目的,采用非法拘禁、扣押等非法手段剝奪他人人身自由的特征。索債型非法拘禁行為的構成要件表現為;主體屬于一般主體,主觀方面屬于故意犯罪,并且其行為目的就是為了索取債務而實施的非法拘禁、扣押等限制人身自由的行為;客體即他人的人身自由權利;客觀方面必須是采用非法拘禁、扣押等限制他人人身自由來索取債務。我將在這篇論文中從討取債務的不正當囚禁行為的理論基礎入手,結合國內外實證考察,對我國索債型非法拘禁行為認定在理論上的分歧、立法中的不足和司法中的障礙進行分析,進而探討如何完善我國索債型非法拘禁行為相關規(guī)定的建議,這篇論文除去前言和結語,我將從以下三個部分去分析。第一部分索債型非法拘禁行為的理論闡釋。解釋說明索債型非法拘禁行為的涵義、主要特點以及它的構成要件進行全面剖析,通過與勒索型綁架罪進行區(qū)分比較,明確索債型非法拘禁行為的認定界限。第二部分國內外索債型非法拘禁行為的實證考察。通過闡述國外對于討取債務運用非法拘禁行為的有關法律法規(guī),得以借鑒,并連同我國現在對索債型非法拘禁行為的規(guī)定,以發(fā)現我國對索債型非法拘禁行為在理論上的分歧、立法中的不足與司法實踐中存在的障礙。比如,刑法將不法債務也囊括在索債型非法拘禁中,這樣勢必與民法理論相悖,從而為犯罪分子提供了借口等。第三部分完善我國索債型非法拘禁行為相關規(guī)定的建議。提出認定索債型非法拘禁罪中“索要債務”的評價標準應重點從索債型債權人的主觀方面進行分析,研究其社會危害性及犯罪構成等建議。
[Abstract]:With the development of economy, the economic transaction between people is getting closer and closer, and the disputes caused by economic debt increase obviously. Some creditors lack legal consciousness and take illegal seizure when using private relief means to realize creditor's rights. Detention and other means to recover debt cases emerge in endlessly. The Supreme people's Court of our country has made an explanation: "the perpetrator shall be convicted and punished in accordance with Article 238 of the Criminal Law for illegally seizing and detaining others for debts not protected by law such as usury and gambling debts." This provision makes it clear that illegal debts are included in the "debt". The behavior of illegal detention is based on the existence of a certain relationship between creditor's rights and debts, and the characteristics of depriving others of their personal liberty by illegal means such as illegal detention and seizure. The constitutive elements of the illegal detention for debt type are: the subject belongs to the general subject, the subjective aspect belongs to the intentional crime, and the purpose of the act is to restrict the personal freedom, such as illegal detention and seizure in order to obtain the debt; The object is the right of personal liberty of others, and the objective aspect must be to restrict the personal freedom of others by illegal detention and seizure. In this paper, I will start with the theoretical basis of improper captivity of debt, combining with the empirical investigation at home and abroad, to identify the theoretical differences of illegal detention of debt type in our country. The deficiency in the legislation and the obstacles in the administration of justice are analyzed, and then the suggestions on how to perfect the relevant provisions of the illegal detention behavior of debt seeking in our country are discussed. This paper removes the preface and the conclusion, and I will analyze it from the following three parts. The first part is the theoretical explanation of illegal detention. This paper explains the meaning, main characteristics and its constitutive requirements of illegal detention for debt seeking. By comparing it with kidnapping of extortion type, it clarifies the limits of the identification of illegal detention for debt seeking. The second part is the empirical investigation of debt-seeking illegal detention at home and abroad. By expounding the relevant laws and regulations of foreign countries on the illegal detention for debt, we can draw lessons from it, and together with the provisions of our country on the illegal detention for debt, we can find out the differences in theory about the illegal detention for debt in our country. The deficiency in legislation and the obstacles in judicial practice. For example, criminal law also includes illegal debts in illegal detention, which is bound to contradict the theory of civil law, thus providing excuses for criminals and so on. The third part consummates our country's request debt type illegal detention behavior related stipulation suggestion. The author puts forward that the evaluation standard of "asking for debt" in the crime of illegal detention should be analyzed from the subjective aspect of the creditor, and the suggestion of its social harmfulness and the constitution of crime should be studied.
【學位授予單位】：華中師范大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D924.34

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前6條

1 李云林;;索債型非法拘禁的司法認定[J];知識經濟;2012年17期

2 覃遠春;;民法自然債五題略議[J];河北法學;2010年01期

3 陳柱釗;;論索債型非法拘禁的司法認定[J];江西公安�？茖W校學報;2006年06期

4 鄧定遠,鄧定永;索債型非法拘禁罪若干問題研究[J];政法學刊;2003年06期

5 劉憲權,錢曉峰;關于綁架、拘禁索債型犯罪定性若干問題研究[J];法學;2001年09期

6 張明楷;論綁架勒贖罪[J];法商研究(中南政法學院學報);1996年01期

相關碩士學位論文 前3條

1 李春玉;論索債型非法拘禁罪的若干問題[D];吉林大學;2011年

2 周笑竹;索債型非法拘禁罪研究[D];西南政法大學;2008年

3 周翠蘭;非法拘禁罪疑難問題研究[D];煙臺大學;2007年

，

本文編號：2030308