Research On Judicial Determination Of Special Theft

There are three kinds of special thefts,such as burglary,murder,and plagiarism.Judicial practice and the theoretical community have different opinions on the nature of behavior,mainly from the attitude of considering the result to the behavior of the actor.The object of theft also changed from an externally existing property of a physical nature to an intangible property.For the judicial determination related to household theft,the identification of the robbery of the household cannot be completely copied.For the understanding of the household scope,it should be analyzed from the perspective of the victim whether the household meets the criteria for judicial recognition.The act of carrying a weapon to steal can not be considered as a weapon in all items with certain dangers or tools that are common in life.When it is determined whether the perpetrator carries a dangerous article belonging to a weapon,it shall closely combine the circumstances and evidence of the case to determine whether the dangerous article carried by the perpetrator is a weapon.Although the criminal law community defines plagiarism as a public smuggling of personal belongings,according to the criminal law and relevant judicial interpretations,it is impossible to extract the conclusion that plagiarism must occur in public,for theft of all personal belongings in non-public places.The behavior can also be assessed as plagiarism.The criminal means of plagiarism should not be completely in accordance with the traditional findings.Although the above three types of special thefts do not clearly determine the amount of sin,since the legislators stipulate these three acts as theft,do not stipulate other crimes,and do not stipulate these three acts as aggravating acts of theft,they cannot focus on In the behaviors carried out by the actor,it cannot be considered that as long as the behavior is implemented,it is theft and the amount of theft remains.For those who fail to meet the conviction criteria or fail to obtain property,it is impossible to determine in the judicial practice that the perpetrator is guilty of theft or theft.