The Subjective Cognitive State Of The Victim Of The Crime Of Fraud From The Viktimodogmatik

Traditional criminal law theory holds that, The Elements of "the victim in Cognition Error" in the fraud, Refers to the fictional plot of the victim to the perpetrator, believed it, and dispose of the property based on. This definition easily sprightly, but also ignore the diversity of subjective cognitive state defraud victims (for example, a victim of fraud facts suspect status), ignoring the interactive defraud victims involved in fraud crimes. To solve these problems, from the stance of the victims of the fraud, multi-angle analysis of fraud。The viktimodogmatik theory deduces from the victim stance. The viktimodogmatik based on the offender-victim interaction theory, analysis of the role of the victim in the criminal process. as the basis, In1977, Professor Amelung and Professor Schunemann Wrote separately, deduced the theory of viktimodogmatik。 Since then, the viktimodogmatik theory continuous development in dispute and Supported by the German federal Supreme Court precedentThe core thrust of viktimodogmatik theory is to analyze the shared responsibility of the victims of the incident is how to influence the illegality, in particular, whether this shared responsibility can lead to the constitutive requirement or illegal exclusion. Viktimodogmatik theoretical basis for the ultima ratio principle of the Penal Code, that the criminal law and legal interests enjoyed by not expect a last resort when the self-protection. According to the ultima ratio principle of the Penal Code, the viktimodogmatik deem, in not paternalism but libertarianism Rechtsordnung to protect the legal interests, does not make the legal interests danger of the first depend on the victim itself. Of course, many scholars criticism the interpretation of the ultima ratio principle by viktimodogmatik, for example scholars think the viktimodogmatik compressed free space of the victims.The viktimodogmatik core principles were "The possibility of self-protection by the victim" and "the need of protection for the victim"。Possibility to protect themselves, refers to that the owner of legal interests in the absence of national criminal law protection, using their power to protect their legal interests are not affected or prevent legal interests are violated. Victims to protect themselves to be subject to the possibility of a change from the outside of the ordinary risks。The need of protection for the victim, refers to that the owner of legal interests of the infringement occurred before or the specific situation of the ownership of the type, the legislators and regulations adopted in typical dangerous strength as the foundation. Appropriate due to the subjective and objective factors, the need to protect victims will increase, reducing or even eliminating. The Viktimodogmatik performs a bridging function between the general and specific parts, performs the function of the protection of victims, performs the Restriction function of the "Criminal Law inflation", and performs the function that rich Criminal epistemology.The viktimodogmatik deems that defraud victims subjective cognitive state have three types:subjective convinced status、fuzzy suspicion status and specific suspect status。subjective convinced victims, which showed that the specific circumstances of objective information about the case has nothing to do, despite the actual presence of incomplete information, but the legal interests owner believe the information he has received is relatively complete but also with the fact that not phase contradictory of, and convinced that their understanding of, and properly assess the whole situation. Fuzzy skeptics victims aware of the insecurity in the trading environment, but because of the subjective for the good intentions of the perpetrators honesty and no objective verification and testing of the possibility of such doubts, the lack of realistic self protection of possibilities. Specific skeptics victims according to the basic principles of the transaction, generated doubts about the authenticity of the fact that the perpetrators claim, the victim knows the behavior through the delivery of property and not desire they expect, but more likely to his property have a negative impact. Despite this understanding, and the victims and look forward to further investigation, confirmed the authenticity of its suspected or abandon Disposition of property, but the victim was doing nothing, the delivery of its property.Doctrine in the Chinese context, draw lessons from the viktimodogmatik about crime of fraud of the subjective cognitive status of the victim, crime of fraud of the victim’s subjective cognitive status mainly include the following three categories::First, knowing, that the matters claimed by the victim of the fraud people, knowing it to be false, but related reasons (eg, out of pity, unbearable annoyance, etc.), the case is still delivered belongings, for example, beggar’s fraud; specific suspect, the case focuses on the victims of speculative participation in a specific suspect, for example, the case of "Wu Ying"; confident and fuzzy suspect, the of "Pretend to be sun yat-sen’s fraud"、"Zhang wuben events"。Viktimodogmatik reconfigurable of subjective cognitive state defraud victims, narrowed the crime of fraud of the expanding law in our country, also helps to open flexible position open China’s system of crime of fraud.