| With the development of online games, crimes about game virtual property, suchas stealing virtual "currency" or "weapons" used in the network game, occurfrequently. Our law does not give a certain nature of virtual property in network space,and even does not give a detailed regulation of the behavior of virtual propertystealing. However, those cases occur so frequently in daily life that has aroused lotsof disputes. In judicial practices, the penalty of virtual property stealing changed fromnon-punishment to deserving the criminal liability. But, the charge of stealingmultifarious, different judicial office holds different opinions and even the legal basisof penalty differs. Therefore, the same case has different results. The paper, combinesthe legislative theory of domestic and overseas scholars and judicial practice homeand abroad, further analysis the criminal law regulation of the virtual propertystealing, and analysis the practical operability of this law as well. Meanwhile, thepaper has put up with its own opinions of virtual property stealing: whether it iscriminal, which kind of crime should it belong to, how to calculate virtual property’samount, how to judge the behavior of succeed or attempted stealing.The paper starts with the actual problem of network virtual property stealing andthe judicial situation of the penalty of this kind of crime. The paper puts forward thequestion of virtual property stealing firstly. Towards with the development of Internet,the online games become popular. As part of online game, the virtual property’s valuebecomes more and more important, and then the crimes of virtual property appeargreatly. Since our country does not have a certain regulation of the behavior of virtualproperty stealing, the awkward situation of the same case with different resultsappears in judicial practice. The behavior of virtual property stealing can be penalizedfor four crimes: correspondence freedom encroachment crime, destroying computerinformation system crime, illegal access to the computer information system datacrimes, and theft. The reason for this situation is that our country does not declare thenature of network virtual property, and does not make regulations to define the behavior of virtual property stealing. The author thinks virtual property has theattribute of general public or private property, it should be protected by criminal law,and the behavior of virtual property stealing should be penalized as larceny.If we want to define the behavior of virtual property stealing as larceny, weshould firstly confirm virtual property has the attribute of general public or privateproperty, since the larceny’s object is general public or private property. The papercompares and analyzes the characteristic attributes of virtual property and generalpublic or private property; prove that virtual property has3attributes of generalpublic or private property: usefulness, rareness and disposal. So the virtual property isproperty and should be protected by criminal law. The paper then analyzes thepossibility of protecting virtual property by criminal law, thinks that it is reasonable toclassify virtual property into the definition of property in Article92criminal law,define the behavior of virtual property stealing as larceny does not go against with theprinciple of legality. Once again, we have precedent in judicial explanation: larceny’sobject including the electricity, gas and other incorporates; hence, virtual property canbe regarded as the object of larceny. Moreover, analyze from the amount of virtualproperty stealing cases, the value of virtual property and social stability maintenance,it is necessary to protect virtual property by crime law. At last, analyzes from thecrime constitutions of the behavior of virtual property stealing, including subject,subjective aspect, object, objective aspect, they are all tally with general larceny.Therefore, the behavior of virtual property stealing should be penalized as larceny.To crack down on the crime of stealing virtual property is not only the urgentproblems in our country; it also has legislation precedent in foreign countries. SouthKorea admits the property nature of virtual property; it thinks that virtual property hasno nature different with currency; behavior of virtual property which confirms withcriminal conditions should be punished as larceny. America not only regards virtualproperty as movable property, but also brings virtual property into the scope ofheritage in legislation. Japanese and German legislation admit the property status ofvirtual property, but they think the behavior of virtual property stealing should bedefined as the crime of fraud of the network. Though it is different charge fromlarceny, they are both the charge of property stealing; they both accept virtual property as property essentially. Our mainland China does not have articles definitelyaim at virtual property, just set up network crimes of illegal intrusion into computersystem crime, destroying computer information system crime, using the computerimplementation of related crime and the criminal law amendment increases the illegalaccess to the computer information system data, illegally controlling computerinformation system crime; provide intrusion, crime of illegal control computerinformation systems program, tools. In later evaluate and analysis, the authoranalyzes that it is improper to penalize the behavior of virtual property stealing withabove charges, it should be larceny.It is exactly because our country does not definite the law nature of virtualproperty, and even no detail articles to stipulate the behavior of virtual propertystealing, so we have fall into predicament in punishing virtual property stealing.Hence, our law should be improved. The author comes up with two suggestions:firstly, classify virtual property into the definition of property into Article92criminallaw through legislative interpretation; secondly, in current stage while legislativeinterpretation is faultiness, we can also solve the dispute of virtual property stealingby the legislative interpretation of highest judicial organ. It is an effective way oflegal protection of virtual property. Then, analyze the determine methods of stealingamount and stealing behavior in judicial practice cases of virtual property. |
