Judicial Distinction Between Crime Of Occupational Embezzlement And Theft

In recent years,with the development of China's e-commerce as a new economic model,the supporting express logistics industry has ushered in an unprecedented prosperity.As a result,crimes of property infringement in the field of express delivery have also been increasing,showing a high incidence.However,in the process of handling such cases,whether the behavior of courier company employees is a violation of the crime of occupational embezzlement or theft,has always been a great controversy in the judicial practice.And what is embarrassing is that different judgments are often made for the same case.In order to solve this difficult problem in the judicial practice,the author selected a representative case in the field of express delivery for analysis,combined with theoretical analysis of the relevant theories of the crime of occupational embezzlement and the theft,trying to find out the boundary between the two crimes.It also put forward personal suggestions for legislation and judicial interpretation,in order to provide reference for the judicial case handling practice.The main body of this paper have five parts.The first part is the conceptual distinction between the crime of occupational embezzlement and theft,and the introduction of dispute cases.The second part introduces the relevant theories that distinguish occupational embezzlement crimes,mainly from the convenience of using one's position,the means of occupational embezzlement,the determination of embezzlement status,and the handling principle of co-occurrence.The third part introduces the relevant provisions of the laws of the United Kingdom,the United States,Japan,etc.on the crimes of occupational embezzlement and theft.The fourth part is the author's personal opinion on the crime of occupational embezzlement and the crime of theft in the field of express delivery.The fifth part is the conclusion of the research.Theauthor elaborates on the individual referee's viewpoints of the case and puts forward personal suggestions for legislative and judicial interpretation.