Qualitative Analysis Of The Case Of Stealing Two-Dimensional Code

This article starts with a controversial case,comprehensively uses the methods of comparative analysis and case study,combined with the relevant theoretical knowledge of property crime,and conducts a study on the case of stealing the QR code replacement,with a view to having a correct characterization of the case.The full text is divided into three parts.The first part: first introduce the basic introduction of the case,and analyze the focus of the dispute by the case,and find that the focus of the dispute in this case is: the exchange of the actor,the possession of the money,whether the customer has a sense of punishment,and the identification of the victim.Next,it analyzes the controversial focus of the case based on the specific case and the academic theory.The second part: This part focuses on the forensic analysis of the controversial focus of the case,and the analysis draws the following conclusions:(1)When identifying the victim,the property loss theory is selected as the standard of identification,and the analysis of the substantial individual property loss theory has a key role in determining the victim in this case;(2)Based on the basic characteristics of the crime of theft and fraud,the core difference between the two-the sense of sanctions,and the actual situation in China In view of the situation,the author believes that the mitigation theory of the necessary disposition of consciousness is suitable for this case;(3)On the issue of possession,by analyzing the evolution of possession,the determination of possession must be combined with the factual possession factor and the normative possession factor.Indispensable;(4)In this case,it is necessary to distinguish between civil law and criminal law possession,and it is concluded that the case should be characterized from the determination of possession in criminal law,and the two cannot be confused.Part III: This part combines the controversial focus of this case and legal theory,and concludes that the perpetrator's exchange behavior is secret,the victim is the merchant,and the merchant owns the money,and the customer has no disciplinary action.In this way,the views of ordinary fraud,triangle fraud,new triangle fraud,and theft indirect principal offenders are rejected,and the conclusion that this case should not be characterized as a crime of fraud should be characterized as a theft crime(direct principal offender).