Comment On YE YunFei' Theft Case

Theft is the act of stealing public and private property in a large amount,or of multiple thefts,household thefts,armed theft and pickpocketing.The description of the charges of theft in our criminal law does not stipulate the behavioral characteristics of "secret theft".With the popularity of the Internet,there are some disputes on the crime and non-crime,the crime and the other crime,and how to measure the penalty of the new type of theft which uses ATM machine and network transfer system loopholes to obtain other people's funds.In this paper,the above representative cases of Xu Ting,Yu Deshui and Ye Yunfei are selected for case analysis,and carries out semantic research on illegal and possession respectively.Comparing with foreign theft theories,from the perspective of the illegality of the act and the possession of the perpetrator,the author identifies that the perpetrator in the case has the purpose of illegal possession subjectively,clarifies the boundary between crime and non-crime,and incorporates the acts involved in the case into the criminal law.Domain for analysis.Through textual research on the origin of the theory of secret theft,this theory has the advantages of conforming to the people's cognitive and judicial practice,having historical and realistic basis,and more in line with the current reality of our country,and compares it with the theory of peaceful theft.It puts forward that secret theft is a distinct feature of theft,and demonstrates it from two aspects of identity secrecy and behavior secrecy,and draws the conclusion that the perpetrator involved in the case All acts conform to the characteristics of theft.By demonstrating that ATM does not belong to financial institutions and property interests belong to the scope of property protected by theft,it is concluded that the acts of the perpetrators involved should be convicted and sentenced as ordinary theft.The standard and circumstance of conviction and sentencing for theft are shown in tabular form.Combined with the analysis of specific cases,it is concluded that the sentencing in Xu Ting case is too light.Article 63,paragraph 2,of the Criminal Law is inappropriately applied here.The sentencing in Deshui case and Ye Yunfei case is more appropriate.Suggestions are made for the court to invoke the application of Article 63,paragraph 2,of the Criminal Law in order to achieve fairness and justice better from the institutional level.This paper attempts to provide reference guidance for the handling of similar cases in practice.