A Qualitative Study On The Behavior Of Virtual Goods In Stealing Online

With the vigorous development of the online game industry,people are driven by the huge economic interests of the virtual property in online games(such as game equipment,game coins,etc.)Therefore,cybercriminal cases are increasing nowadays.In the theoretical circles,scholars have not yet reached a consensus on the nature of virtual goods in online games.In the judicial practice,stealing in online games in the virtual goods behavior also showed a different view.And even if identified as a crime,the value of the property involved in the method of identification is also very different.On one hand,because of the theft of online games virtual goods with a lot of new features arise case by case;on the other hand,theoretical researches and legislation are relatively lagging behind,which cannot provide judicial and practical guidance.All these issues make Judicial decisions are hard to made.Hence,it's necessary and urgent to strengthen the theft of online games virtual goods behavior qualitative research and theory.In fact,the study of the theory of virtual goods protection in online games not only improve the development of property crime theory in criminal law,but also help the judicial practice in defining the stealing online games' virtual goods behavior.Thus,a qualitative study on the behavior of virtual goods in stealing owns theoretical and theoretical significance,as well as practical value.In this paper,from the typical case of judicial practice,I will first discuss the behavior of the qualitative existence of the debate between the parties in the case,then led to steal online games virtual items in a series of legal issues.Later,I will analyst the problem about "steal online games virtual property behavior",and finally put forward the legislative conception and the amount of identified solutions.In addition to the introduction,the full text consists of four parts.The first part is the basic situation of the case.I mainly focus on Zhang,Lee and others "steal" online games "props" cases,including the case introduction,the case in theory,the practice of divergent views,and the controversial focuses.And here,the legal nature of online games virtual game items and Zhang,Lee's behavior is suspected of using their duties? All these will lay the solid groundwork for the following theoretical discussion.The second part is the legal analysis of related issues.I will focus on analyzing the controversial issues above.Firstly,I will analyze the concept of virtual game of online game and online game and discuss the definition and characteristics of virtual property,especiallydiscuss the virtual property's belonging in online game.Secondly,from the perspective of economic theory and legal theory,I will analyze the controversy about whether the virtual property exists in the academy belongs to the public and private property in the criminal law,and show that the virtual item of the online game belongs to the criminal object of the theft.Finally,by analyzing the " The theoretical differences and the "unit of property" connotation,to arrive conclusion about embezzlement and recognition of the crime.The third part is the case analysis and conclusions.In this part,I give a qualitative analysis and the legal nature definition of defendant Zhang,Lee's stealing props behaviors in the game Journey to the West and the theft of stealing Journey to the West.The legal nature of virtual goods such as "tinkering stone","best animal" and "fantasy coin" in this case is legal property.The virtual goods of online games are property and can be the object of theft.For Zhang,Lee's stealing behavior in online games,based on the discussion mentioned above,I conclude that theft of online games virtual goods does not constitute the behavior of illegal access to computer information system data crime.As Zhang,Lee's behavior is suspected of using their duties,which does not constitute an ordinary theft but constitute a crime of embezzlement.The fourth part is the revelation of the study.First of all,it's necessary for The Supreme People's Court and prosecuting body the Supreme People's Procuratorate to issue an explanation and introduce the relevant judicial interpretation.Besides,a clear online virtual items definition should be included in the "Criminal Law" Article 92 on the "other property" provisions,so as to solve the current judicial practice for online games virtual goods qualitative Divergence.Secondly,in order to deal with the difficulty in determining the amount of virtual goods,it is urgent to set a clear amount and complete the legal system.It is applicable that the setting amount can base on the price of the user's first purchase from the game operating company,rather than the price change afterwards during the games.And the official price will be regarded as the standard of calculation amount to calculate the fluctuant value of the virtual goods.When game players buy the game props,after obtain after the upgrade virtual items,the price valuation of these items can be regarded at a middle price of market value.For the stealing of unsold goods from the game service provider or props own by the game service provider will be sentenced according the circumstance discretion.