| 英文摘要 |
In the period before the Civil Code was passed, the victims of the stolen secured properties and the amount conviction caused huge debates in both practical and theoretical circles. As the guarantee system of the Civil Code vigorously absorbs the Anglo-American functional guarantee concepts, the pedigree of the property rights itself has changed, and these controversies will further intensify. On the one hand, we must reflect on the existing academic viewpoints in property crimes, draw on the latest research experience of civil law and combine the legal consciousness of the general public under empirical statistics to construct a more dynamic and comprehensive civil-criminal relationship, that is, the “field distinctions of damage process”. On the other hand, it is necessary to seriously discuss the legal interests of protection against crimes of secured properties, take lessons from Hohfeld’s rights terminology and the precious opinions emerging in judicial practices and hope that the abstract legal interests of criminal law protection will always remain relevant to the complexity and variety of the specific civil rights，rather than transcendentally affirming or denying that a certain right deserves the protection of the criminal law, but also try to construct the screening and evaluation of civil claims under criminal logic from the dialectical attitudes of independence and subordination, putting forward the deeper notion that the generation of a specific “civil law claim right” is a prerequisite for the existence of legal interests. The two above-mentioned aspects of reflection and reconstruction actually achieve the same goal by different routes, both of which are based on finding the two key points of “victim”and“conviction amount”, helping to reveal the mechanism and confusion behind different judgments in practice. It is also necessary and urgent to strengthen theoretical researches and in future criminal legislation to set up charges specifically for secured property crimes, which will help to promote the normal operation of the security system and optimize the commercial environment. In short, in the “Civil Code Era”, the “positively responsive” criminal law should be the future direction of sustainable development, rather than inertly asserting that the “modest and restrained” criminal law era has also arrived. |
