On Burglary Judicial Determination

According to the robbery of Mr Lu as the angle of view, Based on the theory of crime, On the constitutive elements of a crime subjective factors and objective factors, Starting from the interpretation of criminal law angle elaborated in this case as the place of the general merchandise stores should not be considered as a criminal law on the"family", Then use the unification of subjectivity and objectivity and the crime of intentional theory, interpretation of burglary that needs to have the subjective factor, and that the treatment conclusion. There are 18,000 words in the paper,and this paper were consist of three parts : the Cause of action and the bacic information, the differences in opinions and the focus of controversy,my opinions and reasons.The first part :The cause of action and the basic case. This part mainly the crime nature, time, place, tools, as well as a result of crime the the robbery of Mr lu.The second part: Burglary plot that disagreements and disputes The Lu et al the robbery in Lu et al. The whether the conduct constitutes a burglary two opposing views. And sums up the focus of controversy.The third part: my opinions and reasons. First.of all, Through the analysis of the predecessors of the" door" the extension of the different definition, Combined with the case in the special case of looted stores, A reinterpretation of"family"the extension of the reasonable definition should strictly follow the principle of legality, the crime punishment adapts the principle, On the principles of guidance, Should be based on equity and justice as the criterion, Rational use and interpretation, System interpretation method, On the"family"were strictly limited, That"family life"is that the" door" important elements, About whether the family evaluation standard, Should have the following conditions: The first, Should be with the maintenance of daily life, living infrastructure; Second, The whole building construction and the main purpose is for family life, But not for work and study; Third, For family life residence should be the social general ideas on"home"; Fourth, Habitant lawful possession and use of the housing. In this case the robbed shops because they do not have the above conditions cannot be identified as the criminal law on the"family". In addition, According to the interpretation of system, The social harmfulness of burglary and robbery of the severity of the other seven aggravating circumstances quite, In this case, The robbery of the harmful consequences of relatively small, Overall social harm Shang Da not to the extent of burglary, Therefore, In this case, Lu et al. The behavior should not be identified as burglary; Secondly. As a result of the Supreme Court issued the relevant judicial interpretation is not explicitly stipulated in"home"behavior is illegal as necessary, This paper analyzes the selected cases involving fraudulent intruding into another person's residence behavior, And proves that the burglary door must be illegal, In this case, Lou and others enter the shop belongs to illegal intrusion behavior; Last. This paper analyses the case of Lu et al. The subjective attitude, And try to prove"knowing"should be used as the burglary of subjective recognition of an essential element, The burglary that should require the behavior person with into the"door"knowingly, In this case, Lu and others because they do not have the" home" of knowledge, While not one-sided finds its behavior belongs to burglary. .