法秩序統一視角下的刑民佔有關係界定

關於如何界定刑法中的佔有，學界存在著規範性佔有說與事實性佔有說的爭論，兩種觀點均存在疑問。依據法秩序統一原理，不同法域對相同社會關係的保護應體現出一致性和協調性，在概念界定上可保持適度差異性。這三項內容可以具體化為界定刑民佔有關係的指導原則。據此，民法中的准佔有、輔助佔有可以引入刑法並用於犯罪的認定，而間接佔有和繼承佔有則不能為刑法所引入。對於由佔有衍生的“封緘物的佔有”問題，可依據間接佔有和輔助佔有的原理解決其佔有轉移和歸屬問題。對於由佔有衍生的“違禁品佔有”的問題，是基於刑法的特殊規範目的而設立的，並不違背刑民佔有保護的一致性原則和協調性原則，應當為刑法所堅持。基於此，刑法與民法中的佔有表現為部分相同又部分不同的交叉關係。

There is an ongoing debate in academia regarding the definition of possession in criminal law, with two main perspectives: the normative possession theory and the factual possession theory. Both viewpoints have their shortcomings. According to the principle of legal order unity, different legal domains should exhibit consistency and coordination in protecting the same social relations, while maintaining appropriate conceptual distinctions. This can be concretized into guiding principles for defining possession in both criminal and civil contexts. Based on this, concepts such as quasi-possession and auxiliary possession from civil law can be introduced into criminal law for crime determination, whereas indirect possession and inherited possession should not be incorporated into criminal law. For issues related to possession derived from“possession of sealed items”, the principles of indirect possession and auxiliary possession can be used to address the problems of possession transfer and attribution. As for the issue of“possession of prohibited items”, which is established based on the special normative purposes of criminal law and does not conflict with the principles of consistency and coordination in criminal and civil possession protection, it should be upheld by criminal law. For this reason, possession in criminal law and civil law manifests itself in a partly identical and partly different intersection.