Difference Between Crime Of Bobbery And Cirme Of Extortion

Robbery and extortion in the people’s Court in the trial of criminal cases occupya considerable proportion, and criminal law on crimes of robbery and extortion in thesentencing of the crime but also has a great deal of difference. In practice, the use ofviolence without serious, violations of property rights, is the constant robbery is thecrime of extortion indistinguishable. Can therefore distinguish between robbery andextortion of the Court on the parties making the right characterization and accuratesentence. To maintain the party’s basic rights and fairness of the law is of greatsignificance. Kong Hua purpose of illegal occupation of property of others posing asthis article starting with police coercion to obtain property in case of violence, toprobe into robbery and extortion in the specific distinction in practice.In addition to introduction of this article, including its case, and divergence ofviews, the focus of the case study conclusions part three.Introduction: primarily demonstrates the practical significance of the distinctionbetween crimes of robbery and extortion and research value in this case.Part one: its case. Heard details of the Court has identified identified the basicfacts of the case.Part II: focus and differences of the case. Including court cases focus oninduction and the public prosecution service in the practice and defenders for casedifferences between the two sides. Two crime dispute focuses mainly in the followingaspects:1. the role of violence in two kinds of crime. Kong Hua, who handcuffhandcuffed victims beams so and so and so and Zou, and the threat of verbal behaviorof the level of violence was severe or mild, Kong Hua, who commit acts of violenceare sufficient to suppress rebellion and achieve the level of violence of robbery of thevictims?2. obtaining property and property interests of the two different time andplace. Kong Hua, who was obtained from victims of violence so and so and so andZou property of beams, were agreed for victims who do not have enough cash toborrow money from friends and relatives, obtaining property made in this Act isconsistent with the essential elements of the crime of robbery or is consistent with theessential elements of the crime of extortion.3. ways of acquiring property andproperty interests the two are different. Victims so and so and so and so in Zou KongHua LEUNG under the acts of violence committed by people such as, was deliveredto the property because of fear it, also because completely unable to resist being"made" property.4. perpetrators to victims of robberies takes property differ from theamount requested. Kong Hua, who raised the number to obtain property amounts tospecific requirements, and beam to produce the receipt, is consistent with the essentialelements of the crime of robbery or are essential elements of the crime of extortion.5.victims of acts of "autonomy" are different. Beam of the victim so and so and so andZou, Kong Hua, who’s violent under stress, are completely lost their free will andproperty is taken away; is a psychological fear, based on their means of delivery ofthe property.Part III: research findings. This part of the paper core. I think,1. in this case inthe Kong Hua, people of violence behavior also insufficient to suppressed victimsbeam so and Zou so of against, this in Kong Hua posing as of police identity is Zou soof friends suspected and expose of when only select has escape and no continues toimplementation more serious of violence behavior Shi are has confirmed; its withhandcuffs handcuffed live beam so and Zou so of behavior also just to to victims saidout themselves of police identity, and is not is using violence strictly control victimsmakes its cannot against.2. acts of looting and extortion can be obtained on the spot property, the key is to look at the behavior people’s subjective intent is to use identityrobbery police identity or do you want to use the police extortion, are sufficient tosilence victims of violence committed by rebel.3. the victim in this case beams so andso and so and so and Zou is not currently under serious violence not to resist, butKong Hua, who fake police identity rather than rebel, to deliver the property’sbehavior was due to fear of public power based on their own means and delivered tothe property.4. the extortion conviction needs to reach a certain amount of restrictions,only need to start the purpose, constitutes a crime and robbery. This case in the KongHua, people posing as police identity, obtained has beam so3,000yuan of property,reached of amount larger of standard, and from its allows beam so from itsmother-in-Law Department borrow to delivery diyajin, and Kong Hua, people tobeam so issued receipt of behavior can see, Kong Hua, people is not for robbery ofdeliberately but extortion of deliberately; from Kong Hua with Zou so to take Zou soof friends sent came of money, in is Zou so of friends Deng a suspected Kong Huapolice identity authenticity of situation Xia, Also do not use violent robberies takeproperty that will be available, but to escape. From the plot of a specific point of viewI think Kong Hua’s behavior in this case should be identified as the crime of extortion.