财产犯的事后行为评价问题

关于事后行为的评价，日本有“不可罚”的事后行为论与“共罚”的事后行为论的分歧，德国存在构成要件论与竞合论的对立。殊途同归，都旨在说明事后行为是否具有构成要件该当性，意在解决前行为因为存在实体性的刑罚阻却事由或者诉讼法上的障碍时，能否以事后行为单独起诉、处罚。除事后销赃等个别情形外，通常应肯定事后行为的构成要件该当性，与前行为作为包括的一罪进行评价，因此，共罚的事后行为论及竞合论具有相对的合理性。

Evaluation of behaviors after property crimes

In Japan, there＇re different opinions about the evaluations of the subsequent behaviors. One idea is that it shouldn＇t be punished. Another idea is that it should be punished with the crime. In Germany, there are two theories. One is elements theory and the other is combined punishment. All these means to explain if the behavior after property crimes should be an element. They try to solve the problem whether the behaviors after property crimes should be sued or punished separately if the actions of crime couldn＇t be punished by the law because of the resistance in the substantive law or the obstacles in the procedural law. Except the specific situations like distribution, the behaviors afterwards should be evaluated with the crimes. So both the theories of ＂it should be punished with the crime＂ and ＂combined punishment＂ are reasonable.