A Criminal Qualitative Study On Stealing The Illegal Collection Behavior Of POS Machines

In practice,fraudulent financial fortune cases such as “uninformed delivery” occur frequently,characterized by “theft in the thief” and “theft in the scam”.The scamming methods are intertwined to make the quasi-deterministic behavior of the behavior in practice.difficult.With the popularity and popularity of non-cash payment transactions,the criminal means of infringing property has emerged in an endless stream,which has brought great challenges to the study of traditional crime models.In this context,this paper selects the case of illegally collecting POS machine illegally collected as a research object.Its typical feature is that the stealing behavior has the elements of “stealing” and “fraud”,and the whole property transfer process is not like the physical property.The state is presented,which leads to differences in whether the theft or the crime of fraud occurs when the behavior is characterized.Taking this case as an example,combined with the specific case,the dispute points that lead to differences of opinion are discussed in detail from the legal point of view,so that the behavior of “stealing POS machine illegal collection” is criminalized.The full text consists of four parts and runs to about twenty-four thousand words.The first part: the basic situation of the case.Mainly through the introduction of the case of Lee stealing the POS machine illegally collected,the divergent view of the case was raised.The illegal exchange of POS machines constitutes theft or fraud.At the same time,the three controversial points that caused the controversy were summarized:(1)Is the victim in this case Wu or customer A?(2)Does Wu have possession of the payment of credit?(3)Is the result of the victim’s possession of property being destroyed or possessed by the victim?The second part:the related legal analysis.This part focuses on the focus of the dispute,mainly from three aspects,one is the determination of the victim in this case.Victims in property crimes must determine the loss of property,and property damage should be based on the reduction of overall property.However,unlike ordinary criminal cases,there is a legal and effective civil transaction in the tripartite relationship involved in the case.The final decision on who will bear the loss of the goods will affect the determination of the victim.At this time,it is necessary to introduce the appearance responsibility of the civil law.To protect the reliant interests of third parties.The second is the nature of the victim’s property loss.First of all,after identifying the victims in this case,what needs further consideration is what is the specific content of the victim’s property losses.The nature of property damage should be determined from the perspective of the legal effect of the debtor’s claim that the debtor’s possession is liquidated.This civil law effect leads to customer A’s good faith trust based on the appearance of rights.To the real creditor,the recipient can be paid for the payment of the goods,and the victim delivers the goods and loses the right to pay for the payment.Secondly,although the payment has never entered Wu’s account,the determination of possession should not focus on the order of factual elements and normative elements,but on the implementation of the distribution rules behind the normative essence.The third is whether the case has disciplinary action.Judging from the structure of fraud itself,the crime of fraud requires the victim to consciously dispose of himself,and this punishment is based on the free will of the victim.The behavior of Lee stealing the POS machine illegally collecting money is an impersonation act,and he can use the rules in the civil law to see the agency rules.The effect of the criminal law of the agent is to prevent the perpetrator from committing fraudulent crimes against a bona fide third party,and instead fill the punishment loophole on the perpetrator’s property crime against the victim.The third part: the conclusion of the study in this case.Through the legal analysis of the second part,from two aspects of analysis and argumentation,it is concluded that Li constitutes the crime of theft.In this case,although Li’s behavior of stealing a POS machine has certain deceptive nature,in the whole process of the case,there is no necessary punishment for fraud.As the sole victim of this case,Li used the POS machine that was stolen in advance to forcibly transfer the creditor’s rights enjoyed by the victim to his own enjoyment,and collect the payment on behalf of the victim to see the agent’s identity in order to realize the victim’s claim.They are all implemented without the victim’s perception,and the essence is an act of stealing creditor’s rights.The fourth part: the research enlightenment of this case.Sentencing is required to determine the conformity of the constituent elements.In the context of new payment,the causal relationship between the subjective factor—the victim’s discretionary consciousness and the objective factor—discrimination behavior and cognitive error should be applied to the crime of theft and fraud.At the same time,sin interpretation should be carried out under the existing theoretical framework to prevent the expansion of the applicable sins.