On The Issue Of Convicting The Behavior Of Stealing Self-owned But Others-possessed Property

The criminal act of theft is complex,which contains special types that are controversial.Such as the behavior of stealing self-owned but others-possessed property.This kind of criminal behavior is the same as common theft,and it meets the standard of larceny without doubt.However,when we dig into the concrete content of objective and subjective essentials,we can find that whether this kind of criminal behavior is theft is still under questioning.Does the behavior cause property losses of the owners? How to explain the contradiction between ownership and the rights of possession? Does this behavior truly meet the standard of the subjective essentials of larceny? Is the behavior itself illegal and should be punished? Can this criminal behavior be established? All these questions should be clarified in the overlapping between civil law and criminal law.This article,which hold a total of about thirty six thousand words,is divided into three sessions and is developed by the order of discovering questions,analyzing questions and settling questions.The first session is question discovering.From the analysis of two typical cases of stealing other-possessed property,three dispute was drew during the quantitative process.The second session is analysis about some stealing behavior.The first opinion setting forth in this article is a deconstruction of the behavior of stealing self-owned but other-possessed property.This behavior is divided into two parts including the present stealing behavior and its follow-up action.Second,the article analyzes the theft crime object and people being stolen.From introduction of the present theory of theft crime object around the world,interpretation of related laws and analysis of the procedure of collecting evidence in judicial process,the author has drawn a conclusion that the law of crime theft protect the right of ownership and possession that is not against the right of ownership.At the same time,the article discusses legal interest of stealing target and argues that the right of the stealing target lands on the right of administrative order,the right for usufruct,and the right of security.Thus,this criminal behavior cannot be established.At last,this session analyzes the aim of the illegal occupying behavior from three parts.First,it discusses dispute on the aim of illegal possession.Second,the author argues that the aim of illegal possession is an illegal occupying intention.The actor cannot have illegal occupying intention upon his property.Third,this session discusses different intention after the stealing behavior,which can lead to a conclusion that the follow-up behavior can affect the determination of the theft crime,which can finally establish crime of fraud.The third part has a mainly explanation of the theft crime.By analyzing the present illegality judgement,the article reaches a conclusion that the proper way to solve the illegal action in the crossing field between civil law and criminal law.Moreover,basing on the regulation of proviso in China,the author analyzing the possible existence of illegal punishment theory in Chinese penal law,by which the stealing behavior can be excluded from criminal law.Besides,this article presents the referential value of illegal punishment theory to China from the definition of illegal behavior.