The Judicial Cognizance Of "Two-head Deception"

"Two-head deception" is the judicial organs of fraud cases in a more special category of cases carried out a de facto summary,such cases have the nature of the intersection of criminal people,is composed of two interrelated acts of deception,involving a variety of legal relations.At present,in academic and judicial practice,there are many different views on the determination of "two-head deception" cases.In this paper,under the framework of the intersection of criminal people,taking the type of loan pledge of chartering vehicles as an example,this paper first clarifies the civil problems in the "two-head deception",and then analyzes the criminal problems as a whole and step by step according to the theory of crime constitution,in order to explore the appropriate way to deal with such cases.This research method seems to be similar to the victim-centered judgment method,but the actual demonstration direction is completely different.This paper will also explain the difference between the two analytical ideas in the remainder theory.In practice,"two-head deception" are divided into two behaviors,respectively,before and after the analysis of the two acts,found that the former act constitutes a contract fraud or fraud,and then the act constitutes a fraud.Then through the theory of impunity or the use of implicated relationship to get the conclusion that the perpetrator only constitutes a crime.This method of treatment is not unapplicable,but it is suspected that the conclusion is reversed."Two-head deception" involve the cross problem of the criminal people,and the criminal people should be two parallel problems that need to be analyzed.If there are different answers to civil problems in specific situations,then they should be discussed in different situations.In the "two-head deception",whether the lender can obtain the vehicle pledge in good faith can affect the danger created by the perpetrator’s later harmful behavior,so this paper first discusses this front problem.Then the "two-head deception" is divided into three different situations.In the first case,the lender does not fulfill the duty of reasonable examination,of course,does not have the pledge right to the vehicle,and the lender fails or has not realized the pledge right that the lender thinks exists.In the second case,the lender also failed to fulfill the duty of reasonable examination and did not obtain the pledge in good faith,but the lender "realized the pledge" abnormally,and auctioned and sold the vehicle.In the third case,the lender performs the duty of reasonable examination and obtains the pledge right in good faith,so the lender naturally enjoys the right to auction and sell the vehicle when the actor fails to fulfill the debt due.After distinguishing the three cases,this paper,with the help of the composition of the crime,starts from the harm behavior,further analyzes whether the dangerous flow created by the actor in the "two-head deception" can be realistic,and analyzes the existing problems in the determination of the purpose of illegal possession in practice.If it has been realized,the crime is accomplished.If not,it may be considered an attempt.Finally,to solve the problem of the number of crimes in the act of "two-head deception",it is also based on the above classification.One of the harmful acts has been evaluated in essence in the other,so in order to avoid repeated evaluation,only one crime can be punished.The purpose of this paper is to deal with the cross behavior of "two-head deception" by dealing with civil law problems first and then qualitative analysis of criminal law,and to start with the more typical case of "two-head deception" of loan pledge of rental vehicle.In order to criminal law practice has a role.