Study On Judicial Identification On Transformed Robbery

Property crime has a history,but also dating back to the private ownership economy,the robbery is the most typical of property crime,and harmfulness of the biggest crime,the offender is often through violence means to gain the victim's money,robbery of the victims of the infringement of the victims of property rights also violates the personal right.The crime of transformed robbery is a violent act after the robbery of money.Historically,in order to ensure the property rights and personal rights of citizens,countries have formulated relevant laws to punish robbery behavior,severe laws from system on the protection of the rights of the citizens,but the types of robbery in the real world there are still quite,also increasingly frequent,with "committed theft" after transformation and among them are the most common type of robbery.Since the crime of transformed robbery is the stipulation of legal fiction,there is a fuzzy boundary in practice about the standard of the crime.On the other hand,the crime of transformed robbery is repeated,and the crime forms are various,so it is of great significance to form a unified standard for the judicial identification of transformed robbery.This article takes thefts,the robbery case as an example,discusses the transformation type robbery judicatory maintains the difficult question.In this paper,taking the case as an example,the difficulties and controversial points in the judicial practice of transformed robbery crime are abstracted through the case introduction and the analysis of the focus of dispute,so as to solve the practical problems.this paper first demonstrates that the second theft ACTS constitute a crime of larceny,which is in line with the previous ACTS of the crime of transformed robbery.In the second level,the author proves that the second burglary and violent act are consistent with the constitution of transformed robbery crime through the analysis of the objective behavior of transformed robbery crime.Finally through the understanding of the crime of obstruction of public service from the negative side that the violent resistance to arrest in this case does not constitute the crime of obstruction of public service and should be identified as transformed robbery.