| Due to i OU in daily economic activities is more common,so i OU as the object of illegal behavior emerge in endlessly,but there is no specific provisions on the violation of IOU behavior in the criminal law,so in dealing with this kind of problem is not easy to solve.In the judicial circle,different judgments are often made in the same case.Moreover,there are disputes in the theoretical circle of criminal law about the results of the judgments.And in the theft of i OU related behavior on the identification of the main existence of the following problems: the object of theft "property" how much scope?Can property interests be the object of larceny?;What is the nature of i OU? Is i OU the object of larceny? And so on.There are mainly "negative theory" and "positive theory" in the question of whether property interests can be the object of larceny,and the core issues of the two viewpoints are mainly in two aspects: one is whether property interests can be possessed and transferred possession;The other is whether the interpretation of property interests as the object of larceny violates the principle of legality and the modesty of criminal law.Through the concept of normative possession and destructive possession-establishing a new possession-this model can clarify the possessiontransferability of property interests;On the analysis of the provisions of article 92 and Article 265 of the Criminal law,it is not difficult to find that the interpretation of property interests as the object of larceny does not violate the principle of statutory punishment and the modesty of criminal law.And in the nature of i OU this problem still exists "negative said" and "affirmative said",although certainly said that internal views differ,but certainly said is more reasonable.After solve these problems,the theft of ious qualitative dispute is particularly worth exploring,including the debtor theft ious qualitative controversy and irrelevant to the case the third person theft ious qualitative disputes,of which the debtor theft ious mostly with theft in the judicial practice,but the reasons behind that is worthy of attention;Due to the particularity and complexity of the third party theft IOU case,there are different reasons in the two positions of "guilt theory" or "innocence theory",so both judicial practice and theoretical circles need to pay more attention to it.Finally,from the judicial status quo of the qualitative behavior of larceny i OU to find out the existing problems,that is,in the identification of larceny,there are different identification of the amount of theft and different standards of attempted theft,in-depth analysis and put forward to determine the corresponding standards. |
