Several Judicial Questions Should Pay Attention To In Processing State Personnel Crimes

State functionaries'duty crime is accused severely in criminal law of China, and Corruption is the most general with the most underground, most complex in criminal law. In the judicial practice, The defendants of Corruption always implements. Moreover, The defendants often hides the clues and escape the criminal liability by means of destroying account books, just as the case of Yao'corruption and embezzlement. The case causes great disputes in the process of investigating, prosecuting and trialing stage in local. The essence of the case reflects different opinions of judicial personnel to handle such cases in state functionaries, account books and court convicted of such changes. These judicial problems are often meted with in the processing state personnel crimes. Through the analysis about the accused Yao in the criminal name of the corruption and the embezzlement, the author gives the relative contexts regarding with the corruption and embezzlement between the destroying the account credits and the books. Furthermore, the author also comments over the case according to the referring criminal facts and relative legal problems and put forward the own opinions based on the new situation and new puzzles.Paper is divided into six majority, a total of about 15,000 words.Part I: cause of action. That case is about that Yao'corruption, embezzlement and suspected destroying accounting vouchers, account books.Part II: the case. This section describes the situation to the case of yao accounting vouchers, account books. The prosecutor accused Yao's corruption and destroying credits and books. While the accused'advocator states that Yao did not commit the corruption and the embezzlement and also the destroying the account credits and books. The defendant and his defenders think pearl advertising company not state-owned enterprises, and Yao is not a state functionaries. So they think that Yao constitutes not corruption but destroying accounting vouchers, account books. According to the evidence that involved, the people's court makes a judgment that yao has Corruption, embezzlement.Part III: the focus of the case. There are three focus in the case: One is the identification of Yao, and whether Yao is a state functionary; two is that whether the illegal account is the criminal object of destroying accounting vouchers, account books; three is that whether the people's court may change charges from the procuratorial organs.Part IV: a focus of controversy and disagreement. This section lists the first controversy of this case point of view and why.Part V: Legal Analysis. The author thinks that the pearl advertising company is state-owned enterprises rather than collective enterprises. Yao is the deputy manager and legal representative of pearl advertising company, so he should be a state functionaries. we cannot think Yao is not a state functionaries only because the company is registered a collective enterprise. Although illegal Account books is established outside the establishment of accounting information, it reflects the relevant facts of accounting information, and can be used as destroying accounting vouchers. When there is Criminal fact, the people's court may change error charges coming from Prosecution organ. At the same time, the people's court may also change Crime numbers . The right of the court'changing charges are in favor of the trial of cases. Cases save judicial resources and play good criminal lawsuit value. In thispaper, I cite several auxiliary cases desides the main case .The purpose of the author is to gain thorough analysis and judgment on focus.Part VI: Conclusion. Acting as a state functionaries, Yao occupies property of State-owned enterprises, and he also take state-owned money away. The acts of Yao not only violates the property rights of state-owned enterprises, but also damages the functional integrity of officials. Yao should be punished convicted of corruption and embezzlement.