The Research Of Behavior Nature About Picking Up Other Property To Ask For High Reward

Picking up other people's property is a common phenomenon in people's lives, and the dispute rusulted from it with the owner of lost property is nothing new. In this case, does the finder enjoy the right of claim for reward from the owner of lost property? If he do, how can he exercise the right of claim for reward properly? Does it violate the law and constitute a crime that the finder performs some acts such as ask the owner of lost property for exorbitant award? If it does violate the criminal law, this act should be characterized as embezzlement or extortion? Problems and suchlike cause some debatable arguments in theory and practice, regarding to both the adjustment of the field of civil law and the interest of the ownership of property protected by criminal law, showing the close relationship between the two branches of law. It just shows that crime is but one remove from non-crime. Confusion and difficulty of dealing in the judicial practice undermine the judicial authority and credibility greatly. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the clear nature of this type of behavior by typical case study, so as to form a consensus on the judicial application and provide theoretical guidance for the judicial practice. In this case, it can not only avoid expansion using of criminal law to protect human rights as the role of modesty of criminal law, but also protect the legal interests of society when it is necessary to punish the criminal acts, which leads to serious social harm, and restore the social legal interests which have been infringed.In accordance with the structure of case study, this paper analysis the difficult problems from the case that Lee picked other people's property and asked the owner of lost property for exorbitant award layer by layer. Through interpretation of different opinions and a wise combination of the case closely, this paper is to resolve the problem of judicial practice, and seek a similar method to deal with the similar cases. The Paper is divided into six parts. The article is divided into six parts, about 22,000 word.The first part is about the cause of the case that Lee picked other people's property and asked the owner of lost property for exorbitant award. The second part is about Case description. There is a brief introduction to the case of the occurrence and development, the resulting decision process.The third part is the focus of the case, which points out clearly that the focus of this case is whether the behavior qualitative of Lee is guiltless or the committing, embezzlement or crime of extortion or other offenses.The fourth part is about disputes and differences of opinion. Lee's acts qualitative, which are picking other people's property and asking the owner of lost property for exorbitant award, stimulates three main views debate. The first view is that Lee's behavior is civil, not a crime. The second view is that Lee's behavior constitutes embezzlement while the third view is that it constitutes crime of extortion.The fifth part is about the legal analysis, which is the focus of this paper.This paper is going to determine whether Lee's behavior is civil or criminal. Serious runaway from social correspondence is a crime of the essential features, so that Lee's behavior has constituted a crime. Then the paper will analysis the constitutive elements of embezzlement by objects from crime, objective behavior and mens rea, and make it clear that Lee's behavior goes beyond the objective of embezzlement and not have the illegal occupation mens rea. As a result, Lee's behavior cannot be characterized as embezzlement. Finally, this paper is going to analysis the constitutive elements of crime of extortion by means of threats or blackmail and illegal possession of mens rea, to draw a conclusion that the court characterized Lee's behavior as extortion is right, with the close combination of the case.The sixth part is about judicial recommendations. Deriving from the case, it should be noticed that when hearing the cases of crime of extortion in the judicial practice, it is necessary to distinguish the differences between right exercise and crime of extortion, which has illegal possession mens rea, so as to avoid taking proper conduct as criminal. According to the principal of in dubio pro reo, when there is no conclusive evidence to prove the defendant guilty, the court should be made to the defendant's decision did not constitute crime of extortion, so as to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the accused.