问题1：涉比特币“挖矿”案件合同效力如何认定？
question 1: What is the contractual validity of the Bitcoin “mining” case?
答疑意见：我国对虚拟货币的监管政策较为明确。2021年9月15日中国人民银行等部门发布的《关于进一步防范和处置虚拟货币交易炒作风险的通知》（银发〔2021〕237号）强调比特币、以太币等虚拟货币不具有与法定货币等同的法律地位，不能作为货币在市场上流通。同时该通知明确指出，虚拟货币兑换、为虚拟货币交易提供撮合服务等虚拟货币相关业务全部属于非法金融活动，一律严格禁止，坚决依法取缔；任何法人、非法人组织和自然人投资虚拟货币及相关衍生品，违背公序良俗的，相关民事法律行为无效，由此引发的损失由其自行承担；涉嫌破坏金融秩序、危害金融安全的，由相关部门依法查处。
The circular issued by the People's Bank of China and others on 15 September 2021 on the further prevention and treatment of the risks involved in virtual currency transactions (Silver Issue No. [2021] 237) emphasizes that the virtual currency of Bitcoin and Temas does not have the same legal status as the legal currency and cannot circulate as a currency on the market. At the same time, the circular clearly states that virtual currency-related operations, such as virtual currency exchange, the provision of services to broker virtual currency transactions, are all illegal financial activities and are strictly prohibited and prohibited by law; that any legal person, illegal organization or natural person invests in virtual currency and related derivatives that are contrary to public order, and that the related civil law acts are null and void and the resulting losses are borne by it; and that transactions suspected of disrupting the financial order and endangering financial security are investigated by the relevant authorities in accordance with the law.
虚拟货币“挖矿”活动指通过专用“矿机”计算生产虚拟货币的过程，能源消耗和碳排放量大，对国民经济贡献度低，对产业发展、科技进步等带动作用有限，加之虚拟货币生产、交易环节衍生的风险越发突出，其盲目无序发展对推动经济社会高质量发展和节能减排带来不利影响。2021年9月3日国家发展改革委等部门发布的《关于整治虚拟货币“挖矿”活动的通知》（发改运行〔2021〕1283号）按照“严密监测、严防风险、严禁增量、妥处存量”总体思路，区分虚拟货币“挖矿”增量和存量项目，坚持分类处理原则。严禁投资建设增量项目，加快有序退出存量项目，在保证平稳过渡前提下，结合各地实际情况科学确定退出时间表和实施路径。
Virtual currency “mining” activities refer to the process of producing virtual currency through dedicated “mine machines”, the high energy consumption and carbon emissions, their low contribution to the national economy, their limited driving role in industrial development and scientific and technological progress, and the increased risks associated with virtual currency production and trading links, which have a negative impact on the promotion of high-quality economic and social development and the reduction of energy savings. The circular issued on 3 September 2021 by departments such as the National Development Reform Commission on the management of virtual currency “mining” activities (release No. [2021] 1283) distinguishes between “mining” increases in virtual currency and stock projects, maintaining the principle of classification.
人民法院审理涉比特币等虚拟货币“挖矿”纠纷案件，应当注意国家重要监管政策的变化，准确认定合同效力。对于与比特币等虚拟货币“挖矿”活动相关的纠纷，应以2021年9月3日为时间节点区别对待：该时点之后订立的合同应认定无效；该时点之前的相关合同，不应简单否认其效力，应根据民法典关于合同效力的规定，结合案件事实予以认定。人民法院经审理确认合同无效的，当事人请求依照合同约定交付财产或支付对价的，人民法院不予支持；当事人请求对方返还因该合同取得的财产的，人民法院可予支持；不能返还时，当事人主张以比特币等虚拟货币折算为法定货币价值予以补偿的，人民法院不予支持，但当事人之间就比特币等虚拟货币的代偿金额达成合意的除外。合同有效但未得到履行，当事人请求对方承担违约责任的，人民法院需要充分考虑国家政策变化对于合同履行的影响，合理确定违约责任的范围及承担方式。
When the People's Court hears disputes involving virtual currency “mining” such as Bitcoin, it should take note of changes in the State's important regulatory policy and accurately determine the validity of the contract. In disputes relating to virtual currency “mining” activities such as Bitcoin, the People's Court shall treat them differently as a time node of 3 September 2021: contracts concluded after that point shall be deemed null and void; the relevant contracts entered into before that point shall not simply deny their validity, but shall be determined in the light of the facts of the case, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code on the validity of the contract. If the People's Court, after hearing, determines that the contract is null and void, the parties request delivery of property or payment of the price in accordance with the contract, the People's Court shall not support them; if the parties request the other party to return property acquired as a result of the contract, the People's Court may support them; if the parties are unable to return, the parties claim compensation for the legal monetary value of a virtual currency such as Bitcoin, the People's Court shall not support them, except if the parties agree between themselves on the validity of the contract, but have not fulfilled, and the parties request the parties to assume responsibility for breach of the contract, and the parties's.
点评专家：北京航空航天大学法学院党委书记、教授 周友军
点评意见：涉比特币“挖矿”案件合同的效力认定，在司法实践中争议较大。比特币“挖矿”行为对电力能源消耗巨大，不符合绿色发展理念，不利于节能减排和碳达峰碳中和目标的实现，也违反了民法典第9条规定的绿色原则。因此，2021年9月3日国家发展改革委等部门发布了《关于整治虚拟货币“挖矿”活动的通知》，将比特币“挖矿”活动纳入淘汰类产业的范畴。答疑意见结合民法典第153条第2款关于公序良俗的规定，将违反国家重要监管政策的行为，认定为违背公序良俗，从而认定合同无效。人民法院在审理比特币“挖矿”案件时，将上述国家重要监管政策纳入合同效力认定的重要考虑因素之中，就可以通过司法活动来保障和引导绿色发展。答疑意见还就比特币“挖矿”案件合同无效的法律后果认定予以明确，也考虑到了国家发展改革委等部门发布的国家重要监管政策的要求。答疑意见法理依据充分，可操作性强，对于类似案件的裁判具有较大的指导价值。
As a result, on 3 September 2021, departments such as the National Development Reform Commission issued a circular on the remediation of the virtual currency “mining” activity, which included the “mining” activity in the context of the phase-out of the class industry. The answer to the question was also clear about the legal consequences of the invalidity of the contract in the “mining” case in the context of article 153, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code, which considered the violation of important regulatory policies of the state to be contrary to public order and thus to the non-attainment of the contract. The People's Court, in its consideration of the Bitcoin “mining” case, incorporated the above-mentioned important regulatory policy into the key considerations identified in the validity of the contract, could safeguard and steer green development through judicial activity.
问题2：保证合同无效，一般保证人是否也享有先诉抗辩权？
Question 2: Does the general guarantor also have a right of defence?
答疑意见：依据民法典第687条规定，一般保证人的先诉抗辩权是指在主债务未经审判或仲裁，并就债务人财产依法强制执行仍不能履行债务前，保证人可以拒绝承担保证责任。在保证合同因主债权债务合同无效而无效，或因自身原因而无效时，一般保证人是否仍享有先诉抗辩权，对保证人和债权人的利益影响巨大，实践中存在分歧。经研究认为，一般保证人仍受先诉抗辩权的保护。具体理由如下：
首先，符合保证人赔偿责任的补充性质。法律赋予一般保证人先诉抗辩权，是因为主债务是债务人本来应当自己履行的债务，而一般保证人的保证责任是从债务，具有补充地位，只在主债务人不能履行时才对主债务未履行的部分承担责任。保证合同无效时，一般保证人的赔偿责任也是源于保证合同，同样属于补充性的债务。依据《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民法典〉有关担保制度的解释》（法释〔2020〕28号）第17条，担保合同无效时，有过错的担保人承担的赔偿责任限于债务人不能清偿的部分，同样具有补充性质。同样地，保证合同无效时，一般保证人的赔偿责任也具有补充性质，应受到先诉抗辩权制度的保护。不能仅因保证合同无效，一般保证人的责任就丧失了补充责任的性质。
First, it is consistent with the complementary nature of the guarantor's liability. The law grants the general guarantor a right of defence because the principal debt is a debt that the debtor should have performed on its own, whereas the general guarantor's guarantee is a debt that has a supplementary status and assumes responsibility for the non-performance of the principal debt only if the main debtor is unable to perform. In the event of avoidance, the general guarantor's liability also arises from the guarantee contract, which is also a supplementary obligation. Under article 17 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation of the Application of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China relating to the security system (Law No. [2020] 28), the liability of the guarantor who made a mistake when the security contract is not valid is limited to the portion of the debtor's insolvency. Similarly, in the case of avoidance of the contract, the general guarantor's liability is subsidiary and should be protected by a system of defences.
其次，符合当事人订立一般保证合同时的合理预期。虽然保证合同无效后，保证人根据自身过错来确定赔偿责任，已经不同于保证合同有效时的保证责任，但债权人和保证人签订一般保证合同时，通常不会主观上认为保证合同无效，故双方均有一般保证人受先诉抗辩权保护的预期，债权人通常也不会提前要求一般保证人承担保证合同无效的赔偿责任。
Second, it meets the reasonable expectations of the parties at the time of the conclusion of the general guarantee contract. Although, after the guarantee of avoidance, the guarantor determines liability on the basis of his own fault, which is different from the duty to guarantee when the guarantee is valid, the creditors and guarantors who conclude the general guarantee contract do not usually have the subjective view that the guarantee contract is null and void, so both parties have the expectation that the guarantor is protected by the right of defence, and creditors do not normally require the general guarantor to be liable for the guarantee of the contract's invalidity in advance.
最后，符合合同效力制度体系的内部逻辑。保证合同无效时，债权人获得的利益不应当超过保证合同有效时所能获得的利益。换言之，一般保证人在保证合同无效时至少应当受到与保证合同有效时同样的保护，以维护合同效力制度体系的内部和谐。保证合同无效时，若一般保证人丧失先诉抗辩权保护，债权人则可单独起诉要求其承担赔偿责任，显然有悖于合同效力体系的逻辑秩序，使保证人丧失了保证合同有效时的期限利益。
In other words, the general guarantor should at least be afforded the same protection as the guarantee of the contract in order to preserve the internal harmony of the system of contractual validity. In the event of avoidance, if the general guarantor loses the protection of the defence, the creditor may separately sue him or her for liability, which is clearly contrary to the logic of the contractual validity system and deprives the guarantor of the interest in the duration of the guarantee when the contract is valid.
综上，在保证合同无效时，一般保证人仍享有先诉抗辩权，这既符合保证人赔偿责任的责任性质，符合当事人的合理预期，也维护了合同效力体系的有机统一。
In conclusion, the general guarantor still has a right of defence in the event of the avoidance of the contract, which is consistent with the nature of the liability of the guarantor, with the reasonable expectations of the parties and with the organic uniformity of the system of contractual validity.
点评专家：清华大学法学院教授 程 啸
: Professor & nbsp; & nbsp; at the Faculty of Law of the University of Qinghua
点评意见：先诉抗辩权，也称检索抗辩权。该权利是一般保证人所享有的民事实体权利，而非单纯的诉讼上的抗辩权，对其非常重要。保证人有无先诉抗辩权也是一般保证与连带责任保证最根本的区别。为了平衡各方利益，避免对保证人科以过严的责任，我国民法典第686条第2款规定：“当事人在保证合同中对保证方式没有约定或者约定不明确的，按照一般保证承担保证责任。”同时，在第687条第2款还严格限定了一般保证人丧失先诉抗辩权的四种情形。一般保证合同无效并非该款规定的保证人丧失先诉抗辩权的情形。此外，保证合同无效并不意味着保证人就完全免责。依据民法典第682条第2款的规定，保证合同被确认无效后，债务人、保证人、债权人有过错的，应当根据其过错各自承担相应的民事责任。虽然保证人是因过错而承担相应的民事责任，但并不改变保证人并非为自身债务负责的本质特征。故此，如果认为一般保证合同有效的，保证人有先诉抗辩权，保证合同无效时，一般保证人就没有先诉抗辩权，显然违反了同等事物同等对待的基本法理，也人为地改变了债权人、债务人与保证人之间的利益结构，加重了保证人的责任。因此，本答疑关于保证合同无效时一般保证人仍有先诉抗辩权的观点无疑是正确的，其从保证人赔偿责任的性质、当事人的预期以及合同效力体系的内部逻辑等三个方面论证也是具有说服力的。
In order to balance the interests of the parties and avoid undue liability to the guarantor, article 686, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code provides that: “If the parties in the contract of guarantee have made no agreement on the manner in which the guarantee is made or have not been expressly agreed upon, they shall be liable in accordance with the general guarantee.” At the same time, article 687, paragraph 2, strictly limits the general guarantor's right to lose the right of defence in civil matters, but does not alter the guarantor's view that the guarantor's obligation is not the primary feature of his own debt. Moreover, the guarantee of nullity does not mean that the guarantor is completely exempt from liability.
问题3：客户信息是否属于公司的商业秘密？
Question 3: Is customer information a business secret for the company?
答疑意见：客户信息主要包括两部分，一部分是客户的名称、地址、联系方式等信息，即基础信息；另外一部分是交易习惯、意向、价格承受能力等信息，即深度信息。但该分类并不必然影响客户信息是否构成商业秘密的认定。判断客户信息是否构成商业秘密的标准，在于其是否满足法律规定的“不为公众所知悉、具有商业价值并经权利人采取相应保密措施”，即秘密性、价值性、保密性。值得注意的是，秘密性要求不为公众普遍知悉和容易获得，既不要求绝无他人知晓，也不要求他人付出足够代价仍然不能得到。客户信息的商业秘密相较于技术秘密的商业秘密存在一定特殊性：客户信息实质系可经收集获得的信息，故侵害客户信息商业秘密行为的实质通常是侵权人通过该侵权行为节省了搜集信息所需要的时间和金钱成本。因此，客户信息的商业秘密保护通常有时间限制。故尽管基础信息较之深度信息容易获取，但这仅导致基础信息秘密性的认定更困难及相应保护期限更短。如果基础信息确有商业价值、数量足够庞大，收集足够困难，其亦可能满足价值性、保密性要求，进而可被认定构成商业秘密，对此需要根据案件具体情况予以认定。
The criteria for determining whether customer information constitutes a business secret are satisfied by the fact that it is “not known to the public, of commercial value and subject to appropriate confidentiality measures by the entitled person” as defined in the law, i.e. secret, value, confidentiality. It is worth noting that secrecy requires that it is not widely known and accessible to the public, that it is neither unknown to the public nor sufficiently expensive to others.
点评专家：中国政法大学民商经济法学院教授、博士生导师 来小鹏
: Professor, Doctoral Lecturer & nbsp, School of Civil Business and Economic Law, University of Political Science and Law of China
点评意见：客户信息对公司的运营和发展具有重要作用，但是否构成公司商业秘密并受到法律保护，则应依据我国反不正当竞争法第9条规定并结合具体案情进行判断。答疑意见从客户信息的构成、认定依据、客户信息认定为商业秘密的特殊性三个方面回答了客户信息是否属于公司的商业秘密这一问题。答疑意见精准解读了客户信息中的基础信息和深度信息，准确地理解和把握了我国反不正当竞争法有关商业秘密规定的内在意旨，分析并回答了客户信息的商业秘密相较于技术秘密的商业秘密的特殊性。本条答疑逻辑清晰，依据充分，观点正确，对于个案中正确判定客户信息能否构成公司商业秘密类似问题具有较强的指导意义。
Comments: Customer information plays an important role in the operation and development of companies, but whether it constitutes a business secret and is protected by law should be judged on the basis of the provisions of article 9 of our anti-unrighteous competition law and in the context of specific cases. The question of whether client information is a business secret is answered from three sides of the composition of customer information, the basis for its determination, and the special nature of the client information as a business secret. The answer is a precise interpretation of the basic and in-depth information contained in customer information, an accurate understanding and capture of the inherent intent of our anti-unrighteous competition law provisions on business secrets, and the special nature of the business secrets analysed and answered by clients as opposed to technical secrets.
问题4：二审维持原判的民事案件，执行根据为一审判决还是二审判决？
Question 4: In a civil case where the second instance upheld the original sentence, the execution of the sentence on the basis of the first or second instance judgement?
答疑意见：民事诉讼中，二审维持原判时的执行根据问题，目前理论界及实务界确实存在较大分歧。主要有三种观点：第一种观点认为，二审维持原判时执行依据为一审判决。第二种观点认为，二审维持原判时执行依据为二审判决。第三种观点认为，一、二审判决共同构成执行依据。对这一问题的理解，一方面应当立足民事诉讼法的明确规定，准确理解立法本意，准确界定何为生效裁判、何为执行依据，另一方面要考察和比较不同处理方式产生的不同效果来把握。经研究认为，二审维持原判时执行依据为二审判决。具体分析如下：
answers the question: In civil proceedings , the second trial upheld the original sentence on the basis of questions, and there is currently a great deal of disagreement between the theoretical and the practical communities. There are three main arguments: the first is that the second trial upheld the original sentence on the basis of a first-instance judgement. The second is that the second trial upheld the original sentence on the basis of a second judgement. The third is that the first and second judgements together constitute the basis of enforcement. On the one hand, this question should be understood on the basis of clear provisions of civil procedure law, with an accurate understanding of the intent of the legislation, with an accurate definition of what constitutes an effective decision and on the basis of enforcement, and on the other hand, with a view to examining and comparing the different effects of different approaches.
第一，根据法律明确规定，对于经过二审的民事案件，二审判决是生效判决。民事诉讼法第182条明确规定，第二审人民法院的判决、裁定，是终审的判决、裁定。案件经过一、二审后，共有两个判决书，而同一个案件不能有两个生效裁判。案件经过一审作出判决后，如果当事人选择了上诉，则一审判决就不再发生效力，二审判决才是生效判决。需要注意的是，民事判决的生效，其依据的是民事诉讼法的规定，而不是其他判决的认定，也就是说，二审判决并不是对一审判决效力的确认，而是对案件处理结果作出了与一审判决相同的判断，其实质是作出了“同意一审判决”的实体判决。因此，二审判决才是生效判决，认为二审维持原判就意味着一审判决发生效力的观点是值得商榷的。根据民事诉讼法第235条规定，作为执行依据的民事裁判应当是发生法律效力的民事裁判，因此就排除了二审判决作出后仍把一审判决作为执行依据或者作为执行依据之一的观点。
First, according to the law, in a civil case that is the subject of a second trial, the second judgement is the effective judgement. Article 182 of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly states that the second trial is not an affirmation of the validity of the decision of the people's court, but a final decision of the second instance. After the first and second instance, there are two judgements in the case, the same case cannot be decided in the same case. After the first instance judgement, the first-instance judgement ceases to be valid if the parties chooses to appeal, and the second-instance judgement is the effective judgement. It is important to note that, according to article 235 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the civil decision on which enforcement is based should be the civil decision that has the force of law, so that the second-instance judgement is excluded from the second-instance judgement as the basis for enforcement or as one of the basis for enforcement.
第二，二审裁判主文为“维持原判”并不意味着二审裁判不具有给付内容。根据《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民事诉讼法〉的解释》（以下简称《民事诉讼法解释》）第461条规定，作为执行依据的生效法律文书应当具备明确的给付内容。所谓给付内容明确是指根据裁判文书能够确定当事人应当履行的给付义务，包括金钱给付、交付特定物，也包括履行法律文书指定的确定的行为等。这是从诉的种类对执行力所作的界定，如给付之诉的判决通常具有给付内容，而确认之诉的裁判文书往往无给付内容。对于二审维持原判的案件，“维持原判”的实际含义是二审的判决主文与一审判决主文相同，但简略表述为“维持原判”，这种简略表述并不能改变诉的性质，如果案件本身为给付之诉，且一审判决也有明确的给付内容，那么二审“维持原判”表示二审判决所确定的给付内容与一审判决一样，而不是说二审判决不具有给付内容。实践中，在二审维持原判后的强制执行立案时，二审维持原判的判决作为执行依据，同时也要求申请执行人提交原审的判决书，以便执行法官在执行中确定“维持原判”中“原判”的具体内容。
Second, the second-instance decision does not mean that the second-instance decision does not have the content of payment. According to article 461 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law), the legal instrument in force as a basis for enforcement should have a clear content of payment. The content of the payment is clearly defined as the obligation to pay, including the payment of money, the delivery of specified goods, and the performance of the acts specified in the legal instrument. This is defined from the type of action in which the enforcement power is to be exercised, such as the judgement on the payment of the claim is usually given, and the decision confirming the claim often has no content of payment.
第三，即使是二审维持原判，但二审与一审判决在认定事实、法律适用等方面并不一定完全一致，以一审判决为执行依据或一、二审判决均作为执行依据也会涉及后续与执行上的衔接问题。根据《民事诉讼法解释》第332条规定，原判决、裁定认定事实或者适用法律虽有瑕疵，但裁判结果正确的，第二审人民法院可以在判决、裁定中纠正瑕疵后予以维持。但在这种情况下，尽管判决结果相同，但二审判决在事实认定、法律适用等问题上与一审判决不尽相同，如执行一审判决会出现与执行二审判决不同的处理结果。比如，计算判决生效后迟延履行期间债务利息起算时间问题。一审判决一方当事人“于判决生效后七日内”按照市场利率支付利息，并判决“如未按照判决指定期间履行给付金钱义务，应当按照法律规定，加倍支付迟延履行期间的债务利息”，二审维持原判。此时如果以一审判决为执行依据，则对于“于判决生效后七日内”可能会产生错误理解。
Third, even if the second trial upholds the original judgement, the second trial and the first instance judgement are not necessarily entirely consistent in the determination of the facts, application of the law, etc. The enforcement of the first-instance judgement on the basis of either the first or second-instance judgement as a basis for enforcement may also involve the question of the link between follow-up and enforcement. According to article 332 of the Interpretation of the Code of Civil Procedure, the original judgement, the finding of the facts or the applicable law is flawed, but the decision is correct, and the second-instance people's court may uphold the decision after correcting the defect in the judgement or decision. In such a case, the second-instance judgement is not identical to the first-instance judgement on matters of fact, application of the law, if the enforcement of the first-instance judgement results in a different outcome from the execution of the second-instance judgement.
第四，如将一审裁判作为执行依据，则二审有关费用将无法执行。如果将一审裁判作为执行依据，二审判决中所判决的上诉案件受理费以及二审中可能发生的鉴定费等费用的确定和负担将无法执行。
Fourth, if the first-instance decision is used as a basis for enforcement, the costs associated with the second-instance trial will not be enforceable.
点评专家：中国人民大学法学院教授、博士生导师，中国法学会民事诉讼法学研究会副会长，中国行为法学会执行行为专业委员会副会长 肖建国
点评意见：二审维持原判时的执行根据认定是当前法院执行实践中备受争议的问题。答疑意见从法律规范依据、维持原判的可执行性和维持原判在给付内容上与一审判决的差异性等三个层面阐释了“二审维持原判时执行依据为二审判决”的主要理由。答疑意见总结归纳了目前理论界及实务界关于二审维持原判时执行根据的三种立场观点，立足于现行民事诉讼法和司法解释的规定，运用文义解释、体系解释等解释方法，对于何为生效裁判、何为执行依据、维持原判是否具有给付内容，以及维持原判的给付内容有别于一审判决之处等问题，抽丝剥茧、条分缕析、层层递进，阐明了二审维持原判时的执行根据认定背后的程序法理。答疑的观点鲜明准确，法律依据充分，理论阐释清晰有力，展现了扎实的专业功底和丰富的实务经验，对于我国民事强制执行实践具有普遍的指导意义。
Opinions: The execution of the second sentence is held to be a subject of controversy in the current court enforcement practice. Answers to questions on the basis of the legal normative basis, the enforceability of the maintenance of the original judgement and the maintenance of the difference between the content of the award and the first-instance judgement explain the main reasons for “the execution of the second sentence in the maintenance of the original sentence.” The reply summed up the current three positions of the theoretical and substantive communities on the basis of the enforcement of the second sentence in the maintenance of the original sentence, based on the provisions of the civil procedure law and judicial interpretation in force, the use of methods of interpretation such as semantic interpretation, the system interpretation, the presentation of the doctrine, the presentation of solid professional results and the wealth of practical experience in the practice of civil enforcement.
问题5：房屋装修后，尚无人居住，进入房屋盗窃财物是否认定为入户盗窃？
> Question 5: Is the burglary of entering a house considered to be burglary when the house has been renovated and is not inhabited?
答疑意见：该问题核心在于对“入户盗窃”中“户”的范围的理解问题。《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理盗窃刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》（法释〔2013〕8号）第3条第2款规定：“非法进入供他人家庭生活，与外界相对隔离的住所盗窃的，应当认定为‘入户盗窃’。”认定“入户盗窃”，应当注意“户”所应当具有的功能特征（供他人家庭生活）和场所特征（与外界相对隔离）。房屋装修放置期间，所涉住所虽然与外界相对隔离，具有“户”的场所特征，但因无人居住，尚未供他人家庭生活，不具有功能特征。从立法目的看，将入户盗窃规定为盗窃罪的一种入罪情形，目的在于强化对户内人员人身权利的保护。因为入户盗窃，一旦被户内人员发觉，往往会转化为抢劫，从而严重危及、危害户内人员的人身。而进入无人居住的房屋通常不存在这一问题。故对被告人在房屋装修放置期间进入盗取家电家具等财物的行为，不宜认定为“入户盗窃”。
Article 3, paragraph 2, of the Supreme People's Court, Supreme People's Procuratorate, Interpretation of Certain Questions Concerning the Law Applicable to the Handling of larceny Criminal Cases (No.
点评专家：北京师范大学法学院教授、《刑事法判解研究》主编 彭新林
点评意见：“入户盗窃”是2011年刑法修正案（八）增加的盗窃罪行为类型。如何认定“入户盗窃”中的“户”，一直是司法实践中的认定难题。为此，《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理盗窃刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第3条第2款专门作出规定。依据该规定，供他人家庭生活和与外界相对隔离是认定“户”的两个主要因素。宿舍、教室、办公室、宾馆房间、临时搭建的工棚等，由于不具有家庭生活功能或者无法与外界相对隔离，一般不认定为“户”。“入户盗窃”之所以没有盗窃数额或者次数的要求，是因为这种类型的盗窃犯罪不仅侵害公私财产所有权，更为重要的是对公民的人身安全构成了重大威胁，因而必须对其作特殊规定，以满足严厉打击的需要。该答疑意见不是从形式上得出结论，而是立足“户”所应当具有的功能特征和场所特征，从“入户盗窃”侵害法益的角度分析“户”的范围，否定在房屋装修放置期间进入盗取财物的行为构成“入户盗窃”，抓住了“户”的本质特征，是根据“入户盗窃”的法益保护目的对“户”的范围进行的妥当解释。解答思路正确、依据充分、逻辑清晰，对于实践中“入户盗窃”的准确认定具有重要的参考价值和很强的指导意义。
Article 3, paragraph 2, of the Interpretations of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Certain Questions Relating to the Law Applicable to the Handling of larceny Criminal Cases specifically provides for this provision, according to which the family life of another person and relative isolation from the outside world are two of the main factors for the identification of “houses”. Hostels, classrooms, offices, guest rooms, temporary sheds, etc., are not considered “houses” because they do not have family functions or are not physically isolated from the outside world, and are generally not considered “houses” because they do not have the exact value of the burglary.
注册有任何问题请添加 微信：MVIP619 拉你进入群
打开微信扫一扫
添加客服
进入交流群
发表评论