The Amount Identifying In The Special Pattern Of Larceny

Criminal law provisions are based on the crime patterns in which implementation of criminal behavior has been completed and the crime results occurred. However, in fact, not every crime can be accomplished smoothly and not every intentional contents of the criminal offense can be achieved. Therefore, there may inevitably exist difficulty in conviction and sentencing when criminal behaviors present into various, abnormal forms. In judicial practice, when identifying the amount of the theft committed in a special form, which is a kind of multiple offenses, a similar situation happened. China's "Criminal Law" Section 264 and the 1997 Supreme Court "On hearing the specific application of the law theft of several explanations" directly mention the issue on the amount, reflecting that the issue on the amount plays an important role in conviction of theft, especially when the theft presenting into various, abnormal forms.The problems about the identifying of the amount of the theft in special patterns are mainly embodied in these four: First, the "On hearing the specific application of the law theft of several explanations" Article 1, paragraph 2, states: attempted theft in serious case, such as the huge amount of precious cultural relics, property or national target for the theft should be punished. Since there are different understanding of this provision the conviction of attempted theft falls into dispute. The crucial problem is whether the"huge amounts"should be a criterion in making the attempted theft being subject to punishment. Second, when the subjective elements and objective elements can not be mutually uniform, the actual amount stolen and the subjective intent of stolen property do not correspond, how to determine the amount of conviction? Third, in several theft behaviors, when there are some parts are attempted and some parts are accomplished, how to determine the amount of conviction? Whether the amount of the consummated acts and attempted acts involved can be accumulated? How to calculate in this situation? Fourth, when the behavior's actions are consistent "On hearing the specific application of the law theft of several explanations" Article 4: "For less than 1 year burglaries or theft in public places, more than 3 times, it should be recognized as 'multiple theft' to theft conviction to punishment" outlined the "multiple theft" of time. Can "multiple theft" be a determinant condition? What is the relationship between "multiple theft" and "large amount"? How to make a choice when the both can be met?This paper highlights the legal text and focuses on the method and perspective of overall interpretation. By exploring specific role of "amount" in the conviction and sentence of attempted theft, the identification strategy of Criminal law on the actual theft of property not in conformity with the subjective intent, the attributes of some parts of attempted and some parts of accomplished offense in several theft behaviors, the attitude of the Criminal law to the same crime number, the punishment basis of attempted crime, whether the amount of the consummated acts and attempted acts involved can be accumulated, the relationship between "large amount" and "multiple theft" and so on, to answer the four questions on the above.