Criminal Law Determination Of Transformed Robbery Joint Crime

Transformed robbery is a combination of the first act of theft and the post-violent acts carried out for specific purposes such as harboring stolen goods.It violates the dual legal interests of property and person.It is a law-based robbery crime and a special case of robbery.The crime is determined to be special and complex.Joint crime is a criminal way in which criminals cooperate with each other,and it is more likely to cause the consequences of legal damage,and it has greater social harm than individual crime.The transformational robbery joint crime combines the characteristics of the two,combined with the principled and ambiguous provisions of the law,the theoretical arguments of the theoretical circles,and the intricacies of the real-life cases,which make the corresponding provisions of the criminal law and related judicial interpretation different in judicial practice.Understand that different standards are adopted in the determination of the conversion-type robbery joint crime,and there is a case of “ different judgments in the same case ”.Therefore,three specific controversial issues have been selected from the judicial practice to analyze the conviction and sentencing of the conversion-type robbery joint crime to further clarify the theoretical controversy,in order to provide some suggestions for the identification criteria of the conversion-type robbery joint crime.After joint theft,fraud,and robbing,some actors commit threats of violence or violence for harboring stolen goods,resisting arrest or destroying crimes,and whethersome actors who have not carried out violence on the spot constitute a joint crime of conversion robbery(referred to as the first crime)The perpetrator silenced others against violence.)The author adopts the method of theoretical discussion and case analysis to first clarify the controversial views in practice,to establish a theft of violence against others,or to commit a robbery joint crime.In combination with judicial interpretation,judgments are based on the attitude of other accomplices at the crime scene to violence against others.Consent(including express and implied consent)can be considered as a joint criminal intent with transformed robbery;objection,uninformed the violent act of identifying another person is subject to over-limitation and only theft is established.Whether silence on the spot represents consent,and then judge whether the violence of others exceeds the intentional scope of the joint crime,should consider whether the perpetrator who violently silences others has the right to choose actively.If the silent perpetrator and the violent perpetrator are engaged in pre-emptive or conspiracy of violence,then silence on the spot is their consent to the violence,and the laissez-faire of the consequences of the conversion-type robbery,at this time,a conversion-type robbery joint crime is established;The perpetrators who are silent at the scene cannot escape or withdraw from the crime.They are forced to stay on the scene.At this time,silence on violence cannot be considered as consent.Violence is an over-limitation and only theft is established.Whether the perpetrator of the act of theft has committed a violent act constitutes a joint crime of convertible robbery(referred to as part of the perpetrator's follow-up behavior only).That is,after the actor first steals,the latter actor only carries out the qualitative problem of violent behavior.The author starts from the nature of transformational robbery.It is a crime of robbery under the law.The criminal behavior pattern is similar to the common robbery crime,and the compound behavior is allowed.In combination with the theory of inheritance and accomplice,in specific cases,it should be judged according to whether the behavior of the post-actor is in conformity with the constituent elements of the successor accomplice,and the conforming transformational robbery joint crime is established,and the succession ofthe criminal responsibility is adopted.Theory,that is,responsible for all actions.If the actor is not in conformity with the accomplice,if the actor causes a minor injury to the victim and the above result,the intentional injury is established.Helping the conversion-type robbers to flee the scene and transporting stolen goods constitute an accomplice in the conversion of robbery.For the qualitative problem of the behavior of the perpetrators who help the converted robbers to flee the scene and transport the stolen goods,it is mainly based on the constituent elements of the common crime to judge whether the perpetrators form a joint criminal deliberate with the converted robbers,and have a common criminal act to determine the establishment of a common criminal.If it does not constitute a common criminal,the punishment of the accomplice is based on the constitutional constitutive theory that the theory and the constitutive elements of the accomplice are corrected to determine whether the actor has established an accomplice.