Research On The Action Of Forcing One's Door And Renting His House

At present,with the prosperity and development of China's realestate market,more and more people purchase propertyas an investment,these long-term vacant property has also led to a number of new crimes.Although our country implements the registration publicity system for the establishment of real estate and transfer,but lack of legal protection of the right to the use of the real estate,there have been many cases in which houses that have been vacated by others have been prized open and rented for rent,the judicial practice has different results for such cases,how to define this behavior has become a theoretical issue has been controversial.The article focuses on the controversial focus of "Debate to forcing one's doorand renting other people's housing behavior qualitative",the legal issues related to the crime related to the case are discussed,and ultimately get to break the door to rent other people's housing behavior does not constitute a crime,belongs to the civil right to dispose of and unjust enrichment,in order to help Chinese judicial practice dealing with cases about breaking the door and renting others house.The writing of this article consists of four parts,the main content is:Part one,the basic situation of the case.This part introduces the basic facts of the defendant Yang pry the door and occupy Cheng's house for rental housing for third people,as well as divergent views on the qualitative nature of the case,at the same time find out the case correctly handle the dispute focus needs to be solved.Judicial practice in the process of dealing with the case of the emergence of Yang posed theft,fraud or do not constitute a crime of different treatment,theorists put forward three viewpoints on the nature of the cases: First,Yang secretly pry open other houses and rents the behavior of the house constitutes a theft;second,Yang posing as owner of the house,deceiving the third person will not be informed,and the act of renting others house to defraud others of rental housing constitutes a crime of fraud;third,Yang without the owner agreed to breaking door into other people's housing acts constitute the crime of housebreaking;fourth,Yang's behavior does not constitute a crime,only the civil right to dispose of and unjust enrichment.The focus of the dispute in this case is:the nature of the behavior of the breaking the door to rent other people's housing.Part two,legal analysis of related problems.This part involves four aspects: first,this paper discusses mainly object of the crime of theft and criminal object,the object of crime is mainly for real estate and property interests,criminal object is mainly for the right to use;Second,discussing the crime of fraud,the author mainly discusses the objective behavior of the crime of fraud involving three people;third,the author discusses the legal interests of and objective behavior of illegal intrusion into house crime;fourthly,the author elaborated the civil right of disposition and unjust enrichment system.Part three,the analysis and conclusion of the case.At present,the real estate and property interests could not become the object of theft in our country,and the right to use real estate alone should not become the object of theft.therefore,Yang's acts of prying door of others and renting the house can not constitute the crime of theft.There is no general victim of fraud,so the behaviors of Yang does not constitute the crime of General fraud.The deceived tenant dose not have the right to dispose of Cheng's property,and he isn't the right disposition of the victim's property.There is no disposition behavior of the victim's property which based on mistake.So it does not meet the crime of triangle fraud.Therefore,Yang's behavior does not constitute the crime of fraud.Yang's breaking behavior does not violate Cheng's right of residential tranquility,and Yang's invading behavior is just the means of cheating rent,so this case cannot be identified as the crime of housebreaking.At last,Yang who do not have the right disposition of Cheng's property still illegally rent it,so Yang's behavior is unauthorized disposition.and the unjustified benefits obligation is formed between Yang and Cheng.According to the principle of civil unjust enrichment,Yang has the obligation to return 500 thousand yuan which belongs to unjust enrichment.Part four,inspiration of the case.First,analysing the social effect of Yang's crime or innocence,exploring the social influence of Yang's innocence treatment,and correctly understanding the core principles of Criminal Law.Second,the author hopes that the legislature makes criminal regulation of the behavior of stealing the right of use.The author advocates that regulating the behavior of stealing the right of use alone which is from the characteristics of the right of use.Third,from this case,putting forward the author's own opinions and suggestions on the cross field of criminal and civil cases.Fourth,there are some defects in the provision of punishment of the crime of illegally intruding into residence,so it can not primely protect the citizens' right of residential tranquility.Therefore,the author hopes that the legislature could revise and improve the legal punishment of the crime according to the foreign legislation.In order to better protect the citizens' right of residential tranquility.