Case Analysis Of Zheng De Shun Crime Of Theft

Occupy sin, fraud, theft as common multiple infringe property crimes, in the theory of criminal law and judicial practice occupies an important position. These three charges in the subject, object, subjective aspect are all same, objective aspects though in situations it usually distinguish, but in some atypical cases, often there is difficult to discern, cross overlap. The paper by detail occupy sin, fraud, theft constitutions, combined with the case, ZhengDeShun case analysis in this paper shows that the differences of three sin, in order to practice accurately qualitative handled similar disputes, provide some useful references.The paper has three parts, according to propose, analysis problem, problem-solving logic thinking:the first part statements and dispute case, trial focus; The second part focuses on dispute the charges, including legal analysis of criminal offense of misappropriation constitutes occupation, analyzed the sins of others' property prior hold actor behavior nature and the subjective and objective detinue meanings and performance; Analysis of the crime of fraud crime constitution process were discussed, and the delivery meaning exist if it is necessary,content and conditions and delivery capability, delivery action; Finally in the crime of theft, focuses on the object scope of infringement, the meaning, detinue connotation and secret filch attempted standards for such as this crime problem. The third part summary analysis conclusion, from crime types, invasion of object, detinue illegally in an attempt to produce time, objective behavior four angles, interpretation means the differences between theft and occupation; From the crime types, objective, criminal object, fraud purpose, delivery existence and the victim conditions mean six aspects of larceny, discusses differences fraud with theft.Finally, according to the above analysis, the conclusion that ZhengDeShun case of nature, the author thinks that three defendants have already completed theft, the decision of the court is reasonable.