Qualitative Analysis Of Behavior Of Stealing Others’ Legitimate Possession

Theft uncommon for research, but for theft of property owned stolen studied all such cases is rare. Circumstances to divide it, theft of my property is divided into two cases under the possession of others, one is the illegal possession of stealing people’s property, a person is a person lawfully possession of stolen property. For the first case mainly for property owners from property crime steal back the hands of all his belongings, this behavior is the behavior of the exercise of rights, not a crime. The latter behavior is controversial, causing a lot of discussion of scholars and judicial workers.First, the paper cited three cases in judicial practice very real, and they are illegal disposal of property cases Huizhong Lu detained, Li and Feng Wang smile theft theft and cited the practice of judicial process and the results of these cases I think of similar cases. Secondly, in such cases the problems were discussed, first, what interests theft protection law is, and second, my possessions can become the object of theft crime, the third is how to identify the subjective aspects of such larceny, four such amount of theft is theft problem. For the first question, through the introduction of Japan, Germany, Britain, France and other extraterritorial criminal law doctrine and the doctrine of the Chinese mainland, you can learn Theft Protection Act is lawful possession of property interests, thus I found myself to be the theft of property objects, appropriate solution to the second problem. For the subjective aspects of such cases, according to the view of you scholar and judicial practice in practice it shows that not only requires that the perpetrator has stolen intentionally, will other people’s property for themselves, but also requires behavior afterwards with a claim, theft was set up in order to identify the perpetrators. Later claims for behavior although there are different views, but it should be in front of the behavior and theft seen as the perpetrator of a whole, the two inseparable, but afterwards claims behavior on subjective purpose of illegal possession of objective performance, can not be evaluated separately, so The perpetrator was established only one crime of theft. For the establishment of such cases of theft, burglary amount is the amount of compensation. Finally, I return to the case of the cases one by one the Review.I believe such cases will continue to occur in the future, the dispute has to continue. The author of the article describes the theory of Chinese and foreign, for such cases given the relatively firm conclusions. Hoping to judicial workers dealing with such cases in the judicial practice has played little role.