The Conviction Research On Stealing Virtual Property

With the popularization of Internet technology, the virtual property is becoming more and more familiar with most. But in China under the influence of traditional idea of “plaything weary in well doing”, for a long time, the social from all walks of life to understand more negative coverage of network technology, and therefore the network virtual life holds a negative attitude. In the aspect of the protection of network virtual property in criminal law field that efforts are far from meet the needs of the social justice practice. With the popularization of network technology, more and more people own virtual property, in view of the virtual property crime also play more and more fierce. From 2004, the country’s first case of stolen QQ number was determined for the correspondence freedom encroachment crime, after a court ruled that stealing virtual property form of computer crime, it is because of the blank of the law and the emergence of a variety of sentence in theory and practice are the wind to blow up a dispute. With the progress of the rule of law, legislators advocated by adding relevant computer crimes charges to regulate virtual property theft crime, but about the crime of qualitative problem still did not stop to argue.In this paper we extend the classical stealing virtual property related cases and the outcome through comparison and analysis, the conviction of crime of stealing virtual property dispute on theory analysis, and in the article to the virtual property theft problem of the conviction of their own conclusions. First, stealing virtual property can’t be held for the correspondence freedom encroachment crime, stolen QQ number, for example, on the one hand, the virtual property of QQ number cannot be equated with "letters" of the traditional criminal law theory, even if the "letters" to "email", on the other hand, the behavior of the stolen QQ number is not in conformity with the letter conceals, destroys or unlawfully opens another person’s objective requirement, more not stealing, spying on another communication content in the letter of legal interests violation connotation; Second, stealing virtual property should not be regarded as computer crime, including destroying computer information system crime, illegal access to the computer information system data and other related crimes, it is not only because of the virtual property theft behavior does not meet the relevant provisions of the criminal law of behavior factor, more important is a computer crime on charges related to punish crime, cannot reflect the subjective purpose of crimes, also cannot achieve crime punishment, causes heavy lenient sentence; Finally, the article expounds the core idea, advocated to theft of virtual property theft. With the theory and practice for the understanding of the virtual property as the object of the criminal law protection agreement, this has paved the way for the virtual property theft as theft, secondly, we through the analysis found that stealing virtual property behavior in criminal law about the objective requirements of theft, even if the theory are controversial problem that virtual property value, also won’t be obstacles that stealing virtual property theft.