| In the past two years,with the development of science and technology.The criminal forms with new features have brought some difficulties to the theoretical impact and legal regulation in judicial practice.For example,from 2016 to now,the frequently-occurring criminals took over or stole the merchant’s payment code to obtain financial information.Case.The facts and facts involved are relatively simple,but qualitatively it has caused a lot of controversy.There is the crime of theft,the crime of fraud,and there are different opinions in the crime of fraud.The basic structure of the crime of fraud is that the perpetrator commits deception to the victim,there is a will to communicate between the perpetrator and the victim,the perpetrator has a will to deceive,and the victim has a wrong understanding of the deceit information of the perpetrator.On the basis of the wrong information,the victim voluntarily made a decision relating to the power or control of the property,which in turn caused damage to the property.The actor secretly replaced the store’s two-dimensional code,and its behavior was not intended to communicate and communicate with the store’s proper information,nor was there a communication and exchange of information with the customer.When an actor transposes the behavior of a QR code to achieve the possession of another person’s property,the replacement of the QR code is simply a simple act.There is no information exchange and communication between the actor and the customer.The so-called interaction between theft and swindling does not exist in this case.Deliverability does not exist in addition to the direct negation of the swindle of fraud,it can negate the voluntary nature of the store’s behavior and conclude that the store did not do it.The act of disposing of payments to customers.Therefore,in the two-dimensional code case,the infringement of property by the perpetrator replacing the store’s two-dimensional code is the possession of the store’s claim for the price,establishing theft.First of all,this paper takes the case issued by Shishi People’s Court of Fujian Province as the guide to find the focus of the dispute.Secondly,on the basis of the five elements of mutual exclusion of fraud and theft and fraud crimes,we analyze and argue the controversial fraud behavior,whether the deceived person is misunderstood or punished,and finally combine the principles of the previous sections.Analysis of the case for the qualitative,the behavior of the actor does not constitute fraud,in line with the constitutive elements of theft,the crime of theft is more appropriate. |
