Thetf Case By A He, Et Al.

Larceny、 swindling and embezzlement are common crimes in the judicial practice,although the theory of criminal law to the distinction between the three has been widelyinvestigated, but in judicial practice there are still a lot of controversy. The essay through acase analysises the distinction between larceny、swindling and embezzlement，as well as theinfuluenc of the criminal responsible age and ability to conclude joint offence and theproblem of unilateral joint offender，In order to benefit the judicial practice.The text is about20000words, consists of three parts.The first part introduces the basic situation of the case.The second part puts forward the main disputes.The third part is about the controversial issue of theory analysis, mainly put forward thefollowing opinions:While criminal becouse of the goal of take possession of other’s property illegally，adopting secret means and cheating means at the same time，the distinction between larcenyand swindling is disposition.If there is a disposition，it’s a swindling,otherwise it’s alarceny.Ought to understanding disposition from below several sides：first，whether the personto be deceived has ability to disposit property；second，whether the person to be deceived hasthe right to disposit property；third，whether the person to be deceived has the behavior andmeaning express of metastasize possession.The distinction between larceny and embezzlement is on criminal object、objectiverepresentation and the time when the purpose emerges to take illegal possession ofproperty.First，on crime object，the object of larceny is only chattel，and from the definition，the object of embezzlement is only confined to the property having been possessived legally、the property forgotten or burned.But wether a thing is forgotten,we need concretely analysisthe case through “two sections control relation”theory. Next， on the objectiverepresentation，larceny represents to filch secretly. Embezzlement don’t represent secretly，because it’s object is special.Finally，there is distinction on the time when the purposeemerges to take illegal possession of property. The illegal possessive goal of the person committing larceny engenders before acquiring the property，but for the person committingembezzlement， it engenders after acquiring the property.Combining with the case，the essay also discussed wether the criminal responsible ageand ability influence the conclusion of joint crime. According to the traditional criminal lawtheory，the person not to criminal responsible age or no criminal responsible ability can’t bethe main body of joint offense.But the new rising joint offense theory supports oppositeviewpoint. Traditional criminal law theory brings judicial practice much problem，such aspenalty crevice，unfair sentence.But there’s no obviously conflict between the new risingjoint offense criminal theory and active criminal law,and it also corresponds with currentinternational practice.While modifying criminal law,we should approve: even though partjoint offender have no criminal responsible ability, or don’t reach criminal responsible age,weought to divide each offender’s criminal responsibility concretly,in order to take convictionand punish other joint offender.The essay also discusses the theory of unilateral joint offense.Its existent is objective,wehave no any reseon to negative its existence.It includes unilateral executant, unilateral abettorand unilateral assistant.we should punish unilateral joint offenders according with theseriousness of the crime.