摘要： 扒窃犯罪不是身份犯。公共场所是不真正的构成要件要素，扒窃行为发生在公共交通工具上属注意规定。扒窃与普通盗窃是竞合关系而非对立关系，过分强调二者区分会导致法律适用难题。无数额论和统一数额论均与法教义学原理相悖，应通过实质解释解决出入罪问题。扒窃客观价值极其低廉财物的不构成犯罪；扒窃使用者经常使用的物品、确定身份信息的重要凭证，或者对当事人具有精神价值或情感意义的物品的，构成犯罪。扒窃对于占有人无积极价值也不能被他人直接利用的物品的，不是犯罪。随身携带的范围包括他人带在身上且明显属于其支配管理下的财物、置于身边附近且处于现实支配之下的财物、封闭在特定空间且处于观念支配之下的财物。扒窃对象的大小、体积、外观不是表明违法的要素，不应纳入构成要件的评价范围。

关键词: 盗窃, 构成要件, 刑法教义学, 客观主义, 刑法解释

Abstract: Crime of pickpocket is not the identity crime.Public place is not the real element and the regulation on theft occurred on public transportation is the attention rule.Pickpocketing and common theft are relation of inclusion rather than antagonistic relations and paying too much attention on the distinction between the two will lead to difficulties in the application of law.The cognizance of theft crime without considering the amount and the unified amount is contrary to the criminal doctrinal theory.The convictions and exemption from punishment should be solved by the substantive interpretation.The behavior of picking the property with extremely low value is not a crime; the pickpocketing of items that are often used by users, the identity information for identifying important credentials, or the articles that have spiritual value or emotional significance to the parties concerned belongs to crime.Pickpocketing the property of no positive value and the property cannot be used directly to others items are not crimes.The range of carry-on belongings include the belongings of others taking them on the body and the belongings under its control obviously, the belongings situated nearby and under realistic control, the property enclosed in a specific space and under the control on ideas.The size, volume and appearance of pickpocketing objects do not indicate the elements of breaking the law, so, they should not be brought into the scope of evaluation of the constitutive requirements.

Key words: Theft Crime, Constitutive Requirements, Strafrechtsdogmatik, Objectivism, Interpretation of Criminal Law