Judicial Determination Of “multiple” In Property Crime

In recent years,the situation of "multiple small theft" cases with different sentences for the same case,which is legal and unreasonable,has led to academic debates on the application of the "multiple" provision in property crimes.In practice,the determination of "multiple small" theft cases only conforms to the formal element of "three times within two years," but in essence,the social harm of the act,the degree of criminal punishability,and the infringement of legal interests are unable to reach unity,resulting in The "multiple" cases are considered to be a mere formality.On the one hand,the legislative value of criminalization of "multiple" cases is to fill the governance gap for people with high personal danger that cannot be dealt with.The legislation was influenced by the change in criminal policy and was necessary at the time.On the other hand,"multiple" criminalization can only provide formal normative support for the interface between execution and punishment,but does not help to solve the difficulties of the interface between the two,and is destined to face the dilemma of finding a way out of the system.The urgent need to clarify the meaning of "multiple" criminal law provisions and the applicable standards.Based on the basic theories of criminal law,this article discusses the problems and reasons of "multiple" provisions in property crimes in practice,and seeks relatively unified judicial recognition rules of "multiple" in property crimes,in order to correctly apply "multiple" provisions in property crimes in practice.In order to help the correct application of "multiple" provisions in property crimes in practice.This paper focuses on the following aspects:Chapter 1 is "Overview of the Theory of ’Multiple’ Property Crimes".This chapter introduces the problem with the controversy over the judicial application of "multiple small theft".The legislative process of "multiple times" is divided into three stages,reflecting the trend of expansion of "multiple times" legislation under the new situation.The value of "multiple" criminalization is to respond to social changes,prevent the rebound of recurrent crimes,and serve as an alternative system.The connotation of "repeatedly" in property crimes means that the same illegal act is repeatedly committed and is defined as a crime by the criminal law,or as a crime with aggravating circumstances.The types of "multiple times" in property crimes are divided into "multiple times","multiple times theft","multiple times robbery",and "multiple times robbery"."multiple",and "multiple robbery" "multiple extortion" as the aggravating standard "multiple".In this article,the "multiple" as a criterion for criminalization,to limit the scope of its discussion in the sense of crime theory.Chapter 2 is "The manifestation of judicial alienation of ’multiple times’ in property crimes".Through searching cases,we found that the judicial application of "multiple times" in property crimes is mainly focused on "multiple thefts",characterized by multiple small amounts,a high proportion of crimes identified,and relatively severe punishment.Based on the analysis of relevant cases,it is found that the judicial alienation of "multiple times" in property crimes is mainly manifested in the formalization of crime and non-crime determination,the unified standard of prosecution and non-complaint,and the confusion of the number of determinations.First of all,"multiple" criminalization not only needs to comply with the formal provisions,but also to consider the substantive social harm and the necessity of punishment.For "multiple small" theft cases,from the objective conclusion of guilt,even if the subjective personal harm,can not be convicted.Secondly,the standard of prosecution and non-prosecution varies,giving prosecutors too much discretion,leading to inconsistent results in practice,affecting the embodiment of fair value.Finally,the number of times the standard confusion has also expanded the scope of the fight,the small amount of heavy punishment phenomenon of doubtful reasonableness.Chapter 3 is "The Reasons for the Judicial Alienation of ’Multiple’ in Property Crimes".The "multiple times" provision is a product of the specific background of the times,which emphasizes more on personal danger and has the color of the criminal law of the perpetrator.When the special needs of social governance change,the legislation should promptly abolish the instantaneous provisions that criminalize administrative violations,and gradually remove the traces of the criminal law of the perpetrator.The early criminalization of "multiple" is a summary of China’s criminal justice experience,while the expansion of "multiple" provisions in the Criminal Law Amendment(Ⅷ)and Criminal Law Amendment is a complementary legislation to maintain social stability and prevent common crimes.Inherently,there is no uniform and specific legislative guidance.The basis of punishment for "multiple" crimes of the same type and different types of crimes is unclear and lacks a unified jurisprudential basis.The process of determining the crime is the process of interpreting and judging the conformity of the facts of the case with the provisions of criminal law,and the "multiple small" cases only pay attention to the conformity of the provisions of criminal law,while ignoring the unity of form and substance,which is the deepest cause of the practical problems.Chapter 4 is "Rules for Judicial Determination of ’Multiple’ Property Crimes".The substantial status of "multiple times" in property crime should be clearly defined.Judging whether the "multiple" behavior has social harm should be equivalent to the other three ways of theft.The evaluation of personal danger should be interpreted in accordance with objectivist criminal law to keep the modesty of criminal law.The comprehensive criteria for determining "multiple" acts in property crimes should be considered from the perspectives of the factors such as having received administrative punishment,the amount accumulated and the object of infringement.The specific identification of "multiple times" should be carried out from three aspects: first,the number of acts should be considered to summarize the intention,and it should be reasonably distinguished from continuous offenses.From the level of general social concepts to grasp.Secondly,the continuity of time should be strictly examined,and combined with judicial practice,all thefts are included in the calculation within two years.Finally,the amount is an important criterion for property crime,and it is not appropriate to completely separate the amount from the number of times.