Case Analysis Report Of He Mou's Illegal Possession Of Mobile Phone

In this paper,we choose the case of illegal possession of mobile phone,which is controversial in judicial practice(in the case of illegal possession of mobile phone,which is the express sorter sent by the labor dispatch unit to the express company to do sorting work,who signs a purchase and sale contract with Apple company in a false identity,then chooses the method of cash on delivery for settlement,and then uses the convenience of "sorting express" Li,illegally stole the mobile phone and lied to the dispatcher that he didn't receive the mobile phone,thus refusing to pay.)Through the analysis,we can get the conclusion of the case analysis,and then summarize the handling methods of similar cases,in order to provide an effective method for the future trial work of the people's court.First of all,according to the basic case and different opinions of the case,find out the dispute focus of the case.Secondly,it combs the theories of contract fraud,duty embezzlement,theft and other criminal laws involved in this case,focusing on the boundary between contract fraud and duty embezzlement,theft and duty embezzlement.Finally,through the analysis of this case,the conclusion of this paper is drawn.This paper holds that the express company is engaged in the service of collecting payment for goods on behalf of others.The express company should settle accounts with apple on schedule.However,he took the mobile phone as his own through the abovementioned means,and the payment obligation of payment for goods turned to the express company instead of apple,so the victim of this case is not apple.And He Mou has carried out the fraud of signing a contract with fictitious identity.Although Apple has made a mistake in understanding,its behavior of property disposal has no direct causal relationship with the property acquired by the actor.Therefore,He Mou lacks the constitutive requirements of the crime of contract fraud and does not constitute the crime of contract fraud.The victim of this case is the express company.He Mou has legally possessed the mobile phone due to the responsibility of sorting express,and then changed the legal possession into all acts,which is not in line with the constitutive requirements of larceny and does not constitute larceny.Because he is a labor dispatch worker,but he obeys the work arrangement of the express company,so he can be identified as an employee of the express company,and he uses the post convenience of sorting express to illegally take his own legally possessed property as an existing act,which conforms to the constitutive requirements of the crime of duty encroachment and constitutes the crime of duty encroachment.