Elaboration About Judicial Determination On "Indoor Thet" Behavior Within Larceny

Amendment VIII to Criminal Law has been formally effective since May.1st,2011, in which the basic counts of larceny have been amended and indoor theft isexpressly included in the article of Criminal Law. Thus, indoor theft, as a seperatedcriminal pattern, becomes one of the key elements in criminal constitution of larceny.Indoor theft, for the purpose of illegal possession, is a behavior of illegallycoming into other’s relatively isolated household and of illegally getting other’spossessions. Household,where the stealing actor acts,should have the features offunction and place.The former feature embodies the character of daily life,while thelatter one represents sealing and exclusivity.Household,where the stealing actoracts,should have the features of function and place.The former feature embodies thecharacter of daily life,while the latter one represents sealing and exclusivity.A housewithout any person living in still has the features of a household (livelihood andseal),so it should be regarded as a household.In our real life, there exists some special places that are hard to identify,such asthe commercial and residential houses,employee dormitories and hotels. Judging bythe basic concepts and features of a household, we can tell whether the special placesare regarded as household or notThe subjective purpose of the actor while coming in should be illegal. It shouldnot be judged as indoor theft while stealing indoors for legal purpose and getting intoa household to steal without tools. In judicial practice,the number of canceling actions and the quantity of theft mustbe put into the criminal law adjustment category. On the one hand it can put out thearrogant fire for continueously stealing and punish theft severely to protect people’slivelihood and social order; on the other hand, because of the lowered threshold to besentenced to the crime of larceny, it is easy to confuse indoor theft with offense of actor offense by circumstances, which may over punish the theft. If it is improperlyapplied, people’s basic rights and interests will be violated.Therefore, we should notonly know well about the elements of indoor theft, but also use wisdom while dealingwith such cases. In accordance with the principle of legality, the threshold of larcenyshould be limited by the amount of theft money, state of crime and circumstances ofcrime.The larceny is a kind of infringement property crime. Indoor theft as a seperatedcriminal pattern still has to be judged by whether the actor has got the property worthprotection by Criminal Law. On condition that the property is not actually stealen, orthe action is not finished or the object is not clear or the action is worthless, it shouldbe regarded as unsuccessful theft but not crime.As for some special groups ofoffenders such as juvenile offenders, first offenders, casual offenders andunaccomplished crime offenders, we should timely apply Article13of Criminal Lawthat is “If the circumstance is minor and the damage is not significant, it is notconsidered as a crime.”Through comprehensive research on indoor theft, it is expected to arouse Judicialworkers’ rethinking of the essential attribute of larceny and its social harmfulness. It isimportant to correctly understand and apply Criminal Law about the stipulation ofindoor theftThe measure of conviction on the act of indoor theft should be rightly grasped in orderto avoid negative effect caused by amended Criminal Law on larceny and realizeeffective unity of social protection and human rights protection in Criminal Law.