| In recent years, we often heard people posing as police were "gamblers", "Zhuapiao" and catch offenders to ask for property news. Judicial practice, on how such cases there is also a qualitative different views, some people think should be given extortion, some people think should be given practice fraud, and still others to be given robbery. From a theoretical point of view of criminal law, mainly because there are a lot of overlap between the behavior of the robbery and extortion, practice fraud three counts. Robbery is a subjective intent to rob money, and may infringe personal safety; trickster sin is to gain advantage by posing as government servants to deceive; extortion is also intended to ask for other people's money, but the means eclectic behavior,Various. In view of this, the Supreme Court issued in 2005, the relevant judicial interpretation of the police posing as "Zhuapiao", "gamblers" demanding money behavior to make provision, however, the judicial interpretation of the provisions of the boundaries between the three crime it is still not clear enough, so there is still much controversy applicable. Moreover, this provision is only for the actors impersonating police "Zhuapiao", "gamblers" obtain money wrongful act were explained, and no perpetrators posing as police obtain money in any other case, how to make qualitative requirements. Therefore, the writing of this article will have a theoretical significance, this article is by posing as a classic case of robbing police searches and analyzes the core difference between the three crime from the perspective of jurisprudence and practice, I hope this article judicial practice can be helpful.This paper is divided into four parts, the whole article text of about 20,002 more than a thousand words.The basic portion of the first case, the case. Including a brief introduction, cause of action and the merits, the case of disagreement and contention.The second part, not only the relevant legal analysis, but also the most central part of this article here. Three focus of controversy were the case I will explain. First, the first focus of controversy surrounding this case, I will be on robbery and extortion behavior means to distinguish between violent crime focused on exploring two different coercive acts of crime and possession of property of two ways differences. The perpetrator posing as police violence coercion to take fiscal behavior constitutes robbery or extortion, to distinguish the focus is twofold: First, the behavior of violent coercion motivated people were able to implement the victim is not sufficient to resist or not resist the state; the second is how to deliver the victim's money, is on the spot "was robbed" or on the spot "to deliver the initiative." Then, around the second case the focus of controversy, the author will analyze mental health and behavioral characteristics extortion trickster sin perpetrator and the victim, the case of actors posing as police forcibly robbing, is constituted extortion or practice fraud focus is twofold: First, the police posing as human behavior is characterized by deceit or threat or will both; the second is the victim of what is due to psychological reasons for the payment of money, is forced to pay money or source of frustration trust active in the delivery of money. Finally, around the third case the focus of controversy, the author Now on the basis of a large number of journal articles, and into their thinking on the "posing as police officers robbed" normative meaning put forward their views. By discussing the above three points, thus consolidating the theoretical content of this article.The third part, analysis and conclusions in the case. Hu and You, the two together to discuss, plan, and thus posing as police intimidation, and forced the victim to deliver money, should constitute extortion.The fourth part, the case study of Revelation. Combined with the case, and the scope of the case out of Reflection, I want to practice in similar cases instructive. |
PDF Full Text Request