Research On Judicial Cognizance Of Multiple Burglary

China's criminal law stipulates that multiple thefts can constitute larceny,but the judicial interpretation has not clearly defined the specific identification of multiple thefts,filing standards and other issues.Especially since the Criminal Law Amendment(8)stipulates that "multiple thefts" and theft of public and private property,large amount of larceny and household burglary,carrying a murderous weapon,pickpocketing and other acts of larceny are juxtaposed,in practice,the number of times of larceny is recognized,the amount of larceny is in the position of multiple larceny,and the crime of multiple larceny.There is controversy about form and other issues.In judicial practice,there are different definitions and discretion scales for repeated theft,which greatly affects the authority of criminal law and judicial impartiality.This situation should be changed as soon as possible.Based on the legislative purpose of larceny in our country and the relevant theories and practices at home and abroad,and in connection with the actual work of railway public security,this paper analyzes and demonstrates the above-mentioned controversial issues from the perspectives of continuous theft of passengers and property,repeated theft of railway equipment and facilities,etc.Judging the "second"of multiple thefts should be combined with the specific circumstances of the case,not only from the subjective aspect of the perpetrator of theft intent to judge,but also combined with the objective aspects of the way of behavior,the conditions for the implementation of the behavior,as well as the consequences of the behavior caused by the comprehensive judgment.Correctly defining the number of thefts and the form of crime of multiple thefts will help the judicial staff to identify multiple thefts accurately and solve the problem of different standards for filing cases of multiple thefts,so as to ensure the smooth progress of criminal proceedings and achieve fairness and justice.The theft that has been punished by administration may be included in the scope of evaluation of multiple thefts.There are incomplete forms of multiple thefts.Each theft in multiple thefts is attempted or the proceeds of theft are not property worthy of protection by the criminal law.It constitutes multiple attempted thefts.Only the property that is worthy of protection by the criminal law can be constituted by theft.Accomplished theft.The act of repeatedly stealing a small amount of property or repeatedly attempting to steal a large amount of property can not be simply identified as constituting the crime of theft.If the amount of theft reaches half of the larger starting point standard when three or more larceny acts are committed within two years,it may be concluded that multiple larceny has been accomplished and prosecuted in accordance with the larceny.The formation of multiple burglary may not be investigated for criminal responsibility.For repeated attempted theft,according to the provisions of Article 12 of the Interpretation of Theft Cases in 2013,the criminal responsibility should be determined according to the overall circumstances of the case.