摘要： 职务侵占行为定型的刑法解释应当坚持“综合手段说”和“业务便利肯定说”，将职务侵占行为定型的解释结论限定为(单位人员)利用职务上和业务上的便利，以侵吞、窃取、骗取和其他方法将本单位财物非法占为己有的行为。部分职务侵占行为和贪污行为因为司法解释文本规定的入罪和处罚标准较高而可能导致无法定罪或者无法重罚，这种现象的客观存在本身具有合理性，因而其不能成为否定“综合手段说”并转而采用“侵占单一手段说”的理由。部分学者在采用“综合手段说”的同时，主张盗窃(或诈骗)型的职务侵占行为构成职务侵占罪与盗窃罪(或诈骗罪)的法条竞合，以“大竞合论”“绝对的重法优于轻法处断规则”与“相对的重法优于轻法处断规则”为据而得出以盗窃罪(或诈骗罪)论处的解释结论，存在竞合论上的处断规则错误，亦难以获得正当性。

关键词: 职务侵占, 综合手段说, 法条竞合, 司法公正

Abstract: The criminal interpretation of the crime of duty encroachment should adhere to the position of“comprehensive means theory”and“the affirmative theory of duty convenience”.The crime of duty encroachment means unit personnel illegally possess unit's property by means of embezzle，steal，defraud and other similar methods，taking the advantage of occupation or duty convenience.Some behaviors of duty encroachmenst and corruption are not convictable，due to the high standards of incrimination and punishment stipulated in the text of Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court.However，the objective existence of this situation cannot be the reason of denying“the comprehensive means theory”and converting to the theory of“the sole means of encroachment”and“the substantive interpretation of the crime”.While some scholars adopt the theory of“comprehensive means”，they advocate that theft(or fraud)type of duty embezzlement constitutesconcurrence of articles of law betweenduty embezzlement crime and theft(or fraud)crime，and conclude that the act should be regarded as theft(or fraud)crime on the basis of“the great concurrence theory”，“absolute treatment rules of the strict law superior to the gentle law”and“relative treatment rules of the strict law superior to the gentle law”.These views have faults on the treatment rules of concurrence theory，which are difficult to obtain legitimacy.

Key words: Crime of Duty Cncroachment, Comprehensive Means Theory, Concurrence of Articles of Law, Judicial Justice