Qualitative Study On The Behavior Of Workers Taking Away The Fuse Of Fire

Many cases in judicial practice involve the problem of joint crime.In many case s,the accomplice perpetrator will appear multiple harmful acts in the process of joint crime,and commit several crimes,involving the absorption of offenders,implicated off enders and other issues.Judicial workers can only use the relevant criminal law theor y to clarify the way of handling cases,to ensure that the actors’ behavior is accurately qualitative,the number of acts accurately identified,the nature of the acts accurately pinched,the relevant charges accurately distinguished,in order to truly implement a fa ir judiciary,not indulge.This article will be a typical case of a number of accomplice acts involving the case,mainly from four parts of the study and analysis.The first part introduces the basic situation of the case.This paper mainly introdu ces the controversy in judicial practice about how Zhang convicted and sentenced in o rder to help Liu sell the fuse and take the fuse away from the workshop by making use of his work convenience.There are three main controversies: the prosecution belie ves that Zhang’s act is a secret theft of company property,the real infringement is the ownership of the company property.After Zhang handed over the stolen fuse to Liu,it made the fuse flow into the society and endangered public safety.His behavior co nstituted the crime of theft of explosives.The defense believed that Zhang’s fireworks and firecrackers company introduced workers,who use special identity to commit cri mes,theft of the fuse line behavior is occupied by duty.However,the amount involve d can not meet the standard of prosecution and does not constitute a crime of duty e ncroachment.The court held that Zhang,knowing that Liu was making a profit from selling the fuse,still stole the newly made fuse many times for him,and his act cons tituted the crime of illegal trade in explosives.After clarifying the disputes between th e parties,it is clear that the focus of the controversy is mainly in three aspects: First,whether Zhang’s behavior is characterized as occupancy by duty? Two,in this case,how many acts of Zhang should be regulated by criminal law? Three,how does Zhan g’s behavior break?The second part analyzes the relevant criminal law theory contained in the case.Firstly,this paper analyzes the relevant theories about the crime of occupying by takin g advantage of one’s position.On the one hand,the subject of crime refers to the persons in the company,enterprise and other units,and has certain job responsibilities,an d the relevant acts of which correspond to their posts."Duty" refers to the responsibil ity of a company,an enterprise or any other unit to have a management function or t o handle or manage the property of the unit.On the other hand,"the use of post con venience" should specifically refer to the use of power,or related to the post of conv enience.Then,it analyzes how to identify the harmful behavior and the number of ha rmful actions.Starting from the definition of acts,this paper leads to the characteristic s of harmful acts in the evaluation of criminal law in China,thus defining Zhang’s ha rmful acts as two.Thirdly,it analyzes the conditions of the joint crime,the characteri stics of the implicated relationship,and defines that the acts of Zhang and Liu constit ute a joint crime.There is a relationship between means and purpose between Zhang’s number of acts.Further analysis of the means of behavior,purpose behavior,means t o meet the requirements of the crime of theft of explosives,constitute the crime of th eft of explosives,purpose behavior to meet the conditions of the crime of illegal trade in explosives,constitute the crime of illegal trade in explosives.Finally,this paper a nalyzes the theoretical origin and practical application of the two ways of punishment of the implicated offender,namely,choosing a felony and the combined punishment of several crimes.Combined with the differences between the absorbable offender and t he implicated offender,it concludes that the implicated offender belongs to the substan tive number of crimes and should be punished simultaneously for several crimes.It is not only the trend of legislation and judicature,but also the embodiment of the princ iple of legality of crime and punishment.It is also conducive to the solution of the a pplication of voluntary surrender and combined punishment for several crimes,the real ization of judicial justice and the cultivation of citizens’ awareness of norms.The third part combines the previous theoretical analysis to draw the conclusion o f the controversy in this case.The first is that Zhang’s behavior is plural,including th eft and trafficking,both of which should be harmful acts evaluated by the criminal la w.Two,Zhang’s behavior does not constitute a crime of embezzlement.Although Zha ng is an employee of the fireworks and firecrackers company,he does not have the r esponsibility to keep and take care of the fuse,but takes the fuse by taking advantage of his familiarity with the company’s environment.Zhang’s behavior should be a thef t.Three,Zhang’s acts constituted the crime of stealing explosives and the crime of illegally buying and selling explosives.Four,we should take several penalties for Zhang’s behavior.The fourth part studies the inspiration from this case.The first is about the Enlig htenment of improving the judiciary.It is suggested that through judicial interpretation,we should unify and standardize the specific situation of taking advantage of one’s p osition and the combined punishment of several crimes against public security.Secondl y,the handling of such cases should follow the logical order of the nature of the act,the singular and plural acts,the perpetrator’s criminal form,the specific status and so on.Thirdly,in view of the comprehensive management of society,the relevant depart ments should strengthen supervision over inflammable and explosive dangerous goods,and publicize the law to the special trades dealing in dangerous goods.Through the research and analysis of this paper,we can help judicial workers to clarify the way of handling such cases and solve some problems in the actual handlin g of cases,but this paper focuses on theoretical induction,the relevant views are still lack of sufficient theoretical proof,hope to make full use of the time to study and d emonstrate the relevant views,so as to in judicial practice.It can be applied.