How To Break The Dilemma Of The Attempted Crime Of Amount

The amount of attempted crimes is a traditional controversial issue in the field of criminal law in China.The theoretical debate and the vacillation of the judicial interpretation position have led to a chaotic situation in which the amount of attempted crimes is found to be inconsistent in judicial practice.Over the years,scholars have made great efforts to try to solve this dilemma.The Supreme People's Court Judgment Committee issued the No.62 Guiding Case "Wang Xinming Contract Fraud" on June 30,2016.It provided specific guidance on how to measure the sentence when the "accomplished part" and "attempted part" of contract fraud coexist.The publication of this guidance case has set off a wave of research on the attempted crime of amount in the theoretical field of criminal law.In view of this,it is necessary to do in-depth research and discussion on the related attempted crime of amount,and propose a solution path to solve the dilemma of the attempted crime of amount.This article is divided into three chapters.The first chapter is an overview of amount crimes.The first chapter defines the basic concept of the crime of amount,expounds the theoretical premise and basis of the crime of amount,and proposes the classification of it.The crime of amount refers to the type of crime stipulated by the civilized provisions of the criminal law that uses the amount or quantity of a certain crime as a criterion for conviction or sentencing.It is the inevitable result derived from the mixed concept of crime in our country.It is the unity of the substantive and formal concepts,the unity of qualitative and quantitative factors,and its theoretical basis is based on the theory of infringement of law and the moderation of criminal law.China's current "criminal law" provisions on the crime of amount are mainly concentrated in Chapter III "offenses undermining the socialist market economy order".The second chapter discusses the attempted form of the crime of amount.The theoretically existing controversial focus of the attempted crime of amount is highlighted,and the thesis of this article is explained.Regarding the attempted crime of amount,there are three focus issues currently debated in the theoretical world: The first one is do the attempted form exist in the crime of amount? The Second one is what is the scope of the attempted crime of amount? The final one is how should the attempted crime of crime be specifically determined? The author believes that there is a state of attempt in the crime of amount,and the constitution of crime and the attempt of crime are two-dimensional concepts.The amount is an essential element of the crime.When the perpetrator's the crime of amount does not reach the basic the crime of amount stipulated in the Criminal Law,it can of course constitute an attempted crime.Attempts can be established among basic amount offenders,aggravated offenses,behavioral offenders and offenders.When attempting to punish a person who commits a crime,he should pay attention to the amount that the actor has intentionally and intentionally directed,and under the guidance of the principle of combining subjectivity and objectivity,attempt the sentencing of the person who commits a crime,that is,only when the actor's intentional amount reaches the legal An attempt to commit a crime is only possible when the amount is standard.The third chapter discusses the attempted crime.Analyze and discuss the problem of attempted crimes in the crimes of producing and selling counterfeit goods and theft from a crime level.The crime of producing and selling counterfeit goods is not an optional charge.The meaning of "sales amount" refers to the amount of goods that have actually been sold,including the investments made by producers and sellers to produce and sell counterfeit goods and their value-added.The crime of producing and selling counterfeit goods can be attempted.Although the promulgation of the relevant judicial interpretation of the crime played a certain role in determining the disputes,the identification standards for the subjective maliciousness of the perpetrators were not consistent with the identification standards for the perpetrators' objective behavior hazards stipulated by the Criminal Law,which triggered judicial practice Extremely chaotic.Therefore,the crime and non-crime standards stipulated by the law and judicial interpretation of the crime should be unified fundamentally,and the subjective and objective should be unified.The Criminal Law Amendment(8)expands the objective behaviors of theft(household theft,theft with a murder weapon,and pickpocketing).These three acts and "multiple thefts" are classified as non-quantity theft.The conviction is “picking” instead of “picking with a weapon”;non-quantity theft should also set a conviction threshold based on the amount.When non-quantity theft and the constituent elements of the amount overlap,the relevant amount elements should be convicted.Multiple thefts,home thefts,thefts with picks,and pickpockets will be considered in sentencing.One of the main causes of controversy in attempted theft crimes in the specific determination is the subjective criteria for "illegal possession".The essence of the opposition between out-of-control theory and control theory is that the result is valueless and the behavior is valueless.The basis of the illegality of theft is due to the violation of legal benefits or the violation of the code of conduct.Based on China's criminal law,the fundamental purpose of the criminal law task is to protect the property and rights of citizens.Therefore,the author is more in favor of the theory of result worthlessness.Specifically,in the case of theft,the actor's subjective criterion of "illegal possession" is determined.The author supports the theory of out of control.