Research On The Difficult Problem Of Snatch In Judicial Identification

According to the article267th of the criminal law of our country, snatch crime is abehavior that snatch private property or have a relatively large amount in the public.In theory,snatch is commonly referred to capture others’ property with the purpose of illegal possession.Snatch is a kind of common crimes against property. Because of the law is relativegeneralization, in judicial practice, snatch is often confused with the theft、robbery、fraud andother crimes which against property,Some behavior often have characteristics of the behaviorof several kinds of crime, which cause great controversy in judicial determination. Becausethe understanding is not unified, it is not uncommon that different courts make differentdecisions on the same kind of behavior. Such as a person affect purchase a car and driving offin the process of driving. Or he buys things in shops hypocrisy，and picks up the goods andescapes in the process of weighing goods. Or when the victim’s Mobile phone or wallet fell tothe ground，he openly won the mobile phone from the ground and fled and so on. This kind ofcase, common multiple in judicial practice, but there have controversial for the nature of thecase: Some court identified as fraud, some identified as theft, some identified as snatch andsome Judicial office and personnel identified as robbery, due to different understanding ofjudgment, the results are different. This is not conducive to the judicial unification, but alsodamages the judicial authority. This paper takes the types of cases as the study sample,systematically summarizes composition of the theft、robbery、fraud、snatch and othercrimes,based on induction of judicial practice in different perspectives, and analyzes thecharacteristics of various types of crime In-depth. Come to the conclusion that for the caseconstitutive elements of crime and the nature of the crime of snath,should be convicted snath.This paper is divided into four parts except introduction.The first part, introduces the basic situation of Xu fraud.Including the cause of action andthe facts of the case.The second part, introduces the different viewpoints and the basic reasons for the casestudy. In judicial practice, to determine the nature of Xu′behavior to escape after obtaining amobile phone for the guise of using it,there are theft、fraud、robbery and snatch.The third part, studies the basic theory of the snatch.First,analyses the snatch by usingjurisprudence,mainly includes comparing the different provisions for the seizing behavior among domestic,foreign countries,and Taiwan region.Then focus on analysis of the definitionof the elaboration and the constitute elements provisions of our criminal law, from the mainbody, the subjective aspects, the object and the objective aspects,especially the objectiveaspects of the controversial "slip","open".The author thinks that slip should not be anessential element, in view of reality still constitutes snatch when people have get ready.Nomatter from the legislative purpose、judicial practice or prediction of the national,openness isan indispensable characteristic of snatch,and then this paper researches on the problems in thejudicial determination of the snatch,from the meaning of criminal law to distinguish thetheft、robbery and fraud which are easily confused with snatch.In order to distinct the theft,article emphasizes on the secret nature of theft and the openness of snatch. Distinguish fromfraud, it focus on analysis of the object of crime and whether the victim is conscious todispose of property. For robbery, the use of violence as a means of obvious difference fromthe snatch,which plundering property openly by control the victim against violence, andcoercion, In addition, it analysis of the snatch with weapon and car which maybe transform torobbery.Base on demonstrate the completed and uncompleted of snath,combined withdifferent definition of robbery crime accomplishment and attempted standard.The authoragrees with the control said as to distinguish their accomplishment and attempted standard.The fourth part, we believe that Xu should identified as snatch, according to this articleresearch results, combined with the specific case study case. Xu’s case does not apply thetheft for the publicity behavior；and excludes the fraud for the victim is not based on thewrong understanding and voluntary transfer of possession of the ultimate mobile phone；exclude the robbery for Xu do not use violence and threats of violence have mobilephone.after getting the mobile phone，Xu defy the will of the victim and flee，he should beidentified as snatch.