The Protection Of Virtual Property Criminal Law

The computer network and the Internet's high development has turned the entire world into a global village, making the spatial and region concept tend to diminish, and thus virtual communities come out, in which virtual currency circulates. Along with network game's popularization and development, a wide variety of game equipment and game coins emerge. These virtual currency, game equipment and game coins is the so-called virtual property. In recent years, cases involving virtual property have occurred frequently , having brought realistic harm to the society, but this kind of case in our criminal legislation still belongs to the vacuum region, with the Judicial organ unable to have law to depend on, and failing to deal with them resolutely. This article, in refers to and profits from the domestic research results, proposes the solution to the protection of virtual property criminal law.This article includes three parts: the introduction, the body, and the conclusion. The body launches the elaboration from four aspects:The first aspect defines the virtual property, describing the emergence of virtual property, clearing the content of the virtual property and its extension, essence and characteristics, evaluates its legal attributes, and refutes theorists' mainstream of view - -property theory, which thinks that virtual property does not belong to the existing legal provisions of any of the property areas. Then it carries on proving the virtual property's value, concluding that the virtual property has no value, and the law can not directly regulate and protect virtual property.The second aspect analyses the conduct of virtual property violations. The main means of violations of virtual property include embezzling game accounts and passwords, invading network server, revising the data information, duplicating virtual property, accessing virtual goods by use of fraudulent means. The conduct of virtual property violations can be divided into the inside-game conduct and outside-game conduct by the nature, as the inside-game conduct makes use of the defect of the rules of the game or some kind of psychology of the game-player, employing fraudulence to improperly access other people's virtual property. Such acts have no harm to the computer network data so it should be considered that there was no realistic danger. However, the outside-game conduct has realistic danger, because the violations are all through the intrusion into computer networks and artificially changing the electromagnetic data, so it should be subject to legal norms. Finally, this aspect summed up the characteristics of such acts in accordance with the cases in reality.The third aspect discusses the present situation and methods of the domestic and foreign acts of virtual property violations. This kind of case in our criminal legislation still belongs to the vacuum region, with the judicial organ unable to have law to depend on, and failing to deal with them resolutely. Regarding the virtual property's legal status, South Korea experienced a process from the negative to the affirmative, from completely affirmation to restrictions of transaction. As representatives of civil law, Germany protects virtual property by protecting the electromagnetic records (that is, computer information). Taiwan also employs this way to protect virtual property. U.S. Federal Penal Code puts the conduct of virtual property violations into computer-related crime.The fourth aspect demonstrates the necessity, the aptness and the guard mode of protecting virtual property through the criminal law. First of all, it refutes theorists' view that the conduct of virtual property violations does not need the criminal law standard and stipulation of infringing property crime, but amending the existing criminal law to protect it. This part also proves the necessity and appropriateness of the involvement of the criminal law in protecting virtual property, considering that violations of virtual property has the realistic social dangers, and law we can not act against such anti-system without using criminal law. However, the criminal law does not regulate all of the conduct of virtual property violations, but only regulate those practices which have caused realistic social harm. Finally, the author proposes the legislative conception-- deleting the existing Criminal Law of the 285th, 286th section, adding the chapter of hindrance computer use crime, which includes the following provisions: the invasion of others computer systems, and illegal acquisition, deletion or changing other people's computer data, and illegal interference of others running computer, production and dissemination of destructive procedures crimes.