Comment On Chen’s And Other People’s Occupations

In the case of Chen’s crime of duty encroachment,the focus of the case’s controversy included whether Chen’s conduct constituted a crime,and constituted theft or crime of duty encroachment.Chen’s behavior is socially harmful and criminally illegal.He should be punished by punishment.Moreover,he has repeatedly committed criminal acts and the amount of crimes is large.So Chen’s behavior is a criminal act and should be punished.On the specific crime identification,Chen’s behavior does not meet the objective requirements of theft.The reason is that theft is an infringement of the possession of property by others,and the conversion of the possession of others into its own illegal possession;and the crime of occupational embezzlement is to convert the property of the unit that was originally held by itself into its own illegal possession.Chen illegally takes the money in the account for himself.In fact,he illegally uses the money he or she has legally possessed to make it illegal,and it does not meet the requirements of the infringement of possession required by theft.Chen is in line with the subject of the crime of occupational embezzlement.Subjectively,he has the intentional psychology of illegal possession of public and private property.His behavior objectively infringes on the property ownership of the company and meets the objective requirements of the crime of occupational embezzlement.Therefore,Chen’s behavior should constitute the crime of duty encroachment.In the determination of the crime of duty encroachment,whether the actor’s judgment of “utilizing the convenience of the position” is the core of solving the problem.In this case,the overall case should be comprehensively grasped.In the specific judgment,it is not necessary to form a formal labor contract between the actor and the company,as long as the actor actually serves the company and performs the corresponding duties.In addition,the distinction between the use of authority convenience and the use of work convenience is also a difficult point in the recognition.The understanding of authority convenience should not be too broad,but should be strictly controlled.It is important to examine whether the perpetrator has the authority to possess and dispose of the property in essence,otherwise it is convenient to use the work.