The Meaning Of "Public And Private Property An "Analysis On The Judicial Application Of Property Crimes

As one of the most ancient and advanced crimes, property crimes have a great effect on the human life. To the judicial practice, property crimes are still one of the most important crime types in our country, which are over 40% in the criminal cases of the first trial instance. However, as the development of our social life, the word"public and private property"in the chapter of property crimes of Chinese criminal law was so simple that it could not guide the judicial practice efficiently. The judicial practice is developing with its self-logic, and looking for the special solutions for the special cases, but lack of the theoretical formalization and analysis. Conclusively, this paper, based on the review of the relevant judicial interpretations and ruling cases in the property crimes, tried to present the basic features and contents of the concept of"public and private property"in property crimes in our criminal law.Firstly, this paper discussed the contents of the"public and private property"in our judicial interpretations. Although the relevant judicial interpretations didn't give us the concept of property of property crimes, by analyzing the judicial interpretations, the concept of property could be summarized that the public and private property was something that had economic value and could be owned or occupied, including intangible property such as electricity, gas and natural gas, but excluding non-res and rights. For the documents of title, only those identified as movable property (action in chosen) in the civil law could be included in the scope of public and private property. And non-movable property, credit cards and the telecommunications code could be identified as the object of property crimes by"the concept of loss". Although judiciary tended to apply the theft or robbery for the act of stealing or robbing the contraband (such as drug, pornographic materials, counterfeit currency) and stealing the special invoices for value-added taxes, they didn't think that the contraband or the special invoices for value-added taxes were the"public and private property". The complete definition of the concept of public and private property crimes in judicial interpretations might be generalized as"price + loss". The price means that the"public and private property"could be exchanged in the market, and the loss means the overall property loss which could be calculated in economic.Secondly, this paper thoroughly analyzed the article 91(public property) and the article 92(citizen's privately owned property) with judicial cases. On one hand, there were few cases citing the article 91 and the article 92. On the other hand, the citations in those cases were Virtual reality. After that, from these cases, the article 91 and the article 92 could not give regulated guidance to interpret the concept of property in the chapter of property crimes.At last, this paper discussed the content of"public and private property"in property crimes cases, and thought that the content of"public and private property"was same as the concept of property in civil law. The"public and private property"should be something with economic value, that is, something with a price, which narrowly meant circulation of materials, while broadly included contraband with a price in illegal market. It should be the disposable thing whether tangibles or intangibles. It should be something occupied or managed by people, which narrowly meant legal possession, and broadly meant illegal actual possession. In general, the"public and private property"meant res of any other person which is economic and can be controlled.For the object of crimes, the judiciary tended to exclude the non-valuable things from the"public and private property", and identify the individual property as the"public and private property". In the meanwhile, if the objective result was that it didn't cause the occupier's property loss, and the subjective intention was not the illegal possession, the individual property would not be considered as the"public and private property". The documents of title were included in the scope of property interest in. most of cases. For the bearer instruments, the whole amount were determined as the criminal amount; for inscribed securities, the criminal amount was determined as property interests what the perpetrator actually obtained and an actual loss of property what the victim suffered. The point of the judiciary was not so much infringing the inscribed securities as offending the whole property of the victim. The ideas about the virtual property of the judiciary were quite different, but the position of judicial precedents might tend to be restraint because the Amendment to the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China (VII) added the crimes of"Illegal access to computer information system data"and"illegal control of computer information system".