Study Of Possession In Criminal Law

Ownership theory as the property law, the only difficult to explain is the third person from the hands of thieves stole a case stolen goods, although the present criminal law does not allow a third party damage thieves illegal possession of the sample view, but it doesn’t amount to a recognition that the criminal law protection of possession, also is not equal to think the thieves can become a victim, to consider the tradeoff is to steal from thieves others stolen goods is bound to the property of the victim of the primary flow is difficult to recover after the difficulties, is once again the infringement of the ownership of the victim, in essence is the third person of stolen goods stolen thieves stealing, because the original owner did not lose its ownership, just thieves of damage to its ownership. To say the least, from the title itself, its protection is to possess, utilize, seek profits from and dispose of the four power, protection of ownership, in many cases is represented by the protection of possession, but do not think that the criminal law protection of possession, even protect illegal possession, should think ultimately based on ownership protection for the purpose of the criminal law, possession as part of the ownership of the power, one of the criminal law protection of possession is only temporary, not final, possess ownership does not fight. The subjective aspects of possession limit the unclear to give up, in order to enhance the factual possession, possession meaning has potential and inclusion property. Possess objective aspect to the fact that first, after the social concepts as, occupies the cognizance of the fact that whether to reach exclusive control standard. In because of the special relationship between object and special cases, talking about the master-slave relationship, equality, packing, up and down the dead and deposit has a problem, whether all the discussion is to reach exclusive domination as the standard whether to have possession of the facts, only in the dead thing in the world possess ownership of this kind of situation becomes a problem: has nothing to do with the dead of the recently dead to pick up the third person to walk the dead thing in the world is theft, Chinese general and judicial interpretation must have just dead dead man’s possession of property before his death, but the dead is neither the mean no possess ability, more difficult to reach the level of exclusive power, to the thing not to mention the social concept of possession that can only be sorted in the back of the fact that, so there is no set up stealing. But for embezzlement question whether establishment, embezzlement, after all, the "forgotten" the literal meaning and the dead have no say will lead to not guilty, solution is to "forget" normative interpretation, and it should be and also have the same meaning.