Research On Several Issues Of The Crime Of Duty Embezzlement

The crime of duty embezzlement refers to the behavior of the staff in company,enterprise or other units,using the convenience of their duties,illegally taking possession of the unit's property and reaching a certain amount.In our country,there are usually two ways to define “using the convenience of his duties”: One is to simply copy the crime of Embezzlement,and the other is to analyze it only from the simplified extension method,lack of interpretation and recognition of its connotation,which leads to the dispute in the judicial practice whether the behavior of the courier enterprise staff stealing the parcel and the unit security when stealing the unit property on duty is "using the convenience of his duties",affecting the judicial application.This paper intends to analyze the main elements and objective aspects of the constituent elements of the crime of duty embezzlement through an analysis of a case in the practice of "SF Express Case".This paper first defines the main subject of the crime of duty embezzlement,it analyzes in detail whether the subject of the crime of duty embezzlement contains the staff of state-owned enterprises and institutions.In fact,some of the staff in state-owned enterprises when they taking possession of the unit's property,their behavior cannot be regulated by the crime of Embezzlement.Therefore,when the non-state workers in the state-owned enterprises and institutions invade the property of the unit,they need to commit the crime of occupation.Moreover,from the point of view of the crime of duty embezzlement,it does not limit the scope of the subject.Therefore,the subject of the crime should include staff members of the state-owned enterprises and institutions that are not engaged in official duties.Secondly,this paper analyzes the difference between “ taking advantage of job convenience” and “taking advantage of convenience at work”,and believes that the connotation of “convenience at work” is more extensive than the “ job convenienc”.In the understanding of the problem of "taking advantage of job convenience",this paper argues that the crime ofduty embezzlement is a double legal interest,and concludes that the scope of the "job" should be defined based on the position of the unit public power,that is,the "job" is authorized by the unit.The results and performance reflect the public interest and public power of the unit.At the same time,the author believes that when determining the "job",it should emphasize the control and power of the affairs of the unit to be engaged in the work;the problem of coordinating the law in solving the crime of duty embezzlement and theft On the other hand,the author proposes that the objective behavior of the crime of duty embezzlement should only include the idea of “occupy”,and exclude acts such as fraud and theft from the behavior of the crime of duty embezzlement.Through these analyses and combined with relevant cases,the author believes that Yang in the SF case has control and dominating the delivery of express.He regards the company's express delivery as its own behavior is to use the convenience of his job instead of using the convenience of work,in line with The constitutional elements of the crime of duty embezzlement,so should be recognized as the crime of duty embezzlement.