The Standardized Identification Of "Minor Crime" In The Case Of Multiple Theft

The predecessor of multiple theft is "habitual theft" and "continuous theft".The criminal code,which took effect on October 1,1997,takes "multiple theft" directly as one of the crimes associated with the large amount of traditional theft.Come into force on October 1,2013 of the interpretation of criminal cases of theft of applicable law for multiple theft conviction sentencing specific description,established the crime in the theft of minor "4 + 1" specification standard,namely the actor has "confession,remorse,graft,compensate" four from the plot,to have a greater plot,the people’s procuratorate can not prosecute.Although this explanation can guide prosecutors to standardize the identification of "minor crime" to some extent,so that they can make the decision not to prosecute scientifically,in practice,there are still some problems in the identification of "minor crime" in multiple theft non-prosecution cases.By sorting out the cases of non-prosecution in the China Procuratorial network for nearly a year,it can be found that in the cases of non-prosecution,the procuratorate first thought that the perpetrator was suspected of theft,and then listed various lenient circumstances to explain that the "circumstances of the crime are minor",and then made a relative decision not to prosecute.There are three main problems in the identification of "minor crime" in the cases of multiple theft.First,the legal standards for the identification of "minor criminal circumstances" are not clear,including the general identification standards of "minor criminal circumstances" are not clear and the specific identification standards of "minor criminal circumstances" in multiple theft cases.Second,the circumstances of "minor criminal circumstances" are not standardized,including the lenient circumstances that can be clearly seen in the facts of multiple theft cases by the procuratorial organ;also including the criminal circumstances that should not be identified as lenient circumstances.Third,the result of the identification of "minor circumstances" is not appropriate,and some cases are improperly identified as "minor circumstances".Therefore,should establish many times in the theft case "crime minor" criteria,essentially judge the theft of criminal law punishment necessity,form in 2013 about theft in judicial interpretation for general theft "crime minor" criteria as the basis,combined with the provisions of pleaded guilty forfeit system,formulate a new "4 + 1" judgment criteria.At the same time,we should comprehensively standardize and identify various subjective and objective circumstances in multiple theft cases,correctly identify the lenient circumstances,abandon the circumstances that cannot be lenient,and increase the new lenient circumstances of "specific place of theft".Finally,considering the realization of the legislative purpose,three cases where the crime is minor should be excluded,namely,the cumulative amount of theft is large,the cumulative number of thefts is much higher than the three,and the crime circumstances are significantly minor.