New Understanding On The Distinction Between Common Embezzlement Crime And Larceny

Even though Embezzlement crime and Larceny are property crimes withdifferent behavior pattern, however, it is not easy to distinguish them either in theoryor practice. Academia regards “whether the infringer occupies the propertybeforehand” as a key point to study and practice again and again. But with the moreand more complicate of cases, the theory gradually shows drawbacks.This paper firstly specified the scope of academic research strictly, to make thelaw protect the private property of citizens as much as possible, writer advocated for abroad selection, and made clear that the following discussion of two crimes waslaunched within this range.Nowadays, the major distinction between Embezzlement crime and Larceny is"share ownership", but author believes that the conception resulted in a lot ofdiscussion on this issue, which is facing "Münchhausen predicament." Becausepeople are difficult to reach agreement in understanding the" possession ", whichleading to "self-talking "embarrassment situation.To demonstrate this direction is facing misunderstanding, the third partexplained the unite explanation on "possession" concept. However, the conformalpremise of a conception did not bring a common understanding on the ownership ofthe real property tenure. What’s more, scholars also attempt to clearly explain themeaning of this core concept through refining the "possession" concept, but the fact isthat they still unable to overcome obstacles in interpreting uniformly. Our conclusionat this stage is that, both in theory and judicial practice, putting the "ownership share"as the basis for dividing the two crimes is not a completely reliable choice. Writeralso showed the position of the argument that we need to study the problem of theorigin, take logic theory of criminal law as the basic, and combined with the purposeof criminal law to establish a perfect standard, which is practicable.The fourth and fifth part as the main supporting arguments, discussing from"legal logic premise" to "legal norms purpose", firstly proofed the premise could notbe confirmed logical, and chose a more reasonable explanation,"the purpose of law" as a problem-solving premise of this article. The next article length found out the keyto distinguish these two crimes.At the end of the article, writer used the theory mentioned herein explainingcases in this paper to make sure that the writer’s view is reasonable andcomprehensive.