Research On The Penalty Of Using Theft

The use of theft is a common behavior in daily life,because the difference between it and theft is ambiguous,which has caused widespread controversy on the punishability and boundaries of the use of theft in the theoretical circles.Among scholars at home and abroad,there are different understandings of the basic meaning and reasons for the purpose of illegal possession,as well as differences of views on the object of illegal possession.Although China's judicial interpretation has made limited explanations on the situation of stealing other people's motor vehicles,it has not only its own legal defects,but also its increasingly diverse use of theft in practice.Therefore,this paper first reviews the current situation of criminal law regulation at home and abroad,and reviews the problems and causes of the cases from the perspective of judicial interpretation and typical cases in China.Secondly,it analyses various theories on the use of theft,and on this basis,on the basis of discussing the infringement of legal interests by the use of theft and critically drawing lessons from the experience of foreign legislation.The conclusion is that the use of theft constitutes the crime of theft.Finally,it discusses the specific issues such as the nature of the post-theft behavior.This paper is divided into four chapters.The ideas are as follows:Chapter 1 gives an overview of the use of theft.Firstly,referring to the definition of the connotation of usage theft by scholars,and comparing the relevant concepts of theft and embezzlement,the connotation of usage theft is determined,and the types of usage theft are classified according to the purpose of illegal possession of the perpetrator and the loss of the victim;secondly,the current situation of criminal law regulation at home and abroad is reviewed,the relevant judicial interpretations in China are reviewed,and the concrete judicial practice is investigated.After the practice,it is found that although there are relevant judicial interpretations in our country,the nature of the case of "stealing another person's motor vehicle" is still confused in judicial practice,and why the purpose of stealing another person's motor vehicle is equal to the purpose of illegal possession is not explained.In addition,the determination of the amount of theft is not scientific.Chapter II reviews the basic views of various theories on the use of theft and their existing problems or criticisms.Through sorting out,it is found that the controversy on the punishability of theft mainly focuses on the theory of the purpose of illegal possession and the object of illegal possession.The former mainly deals with the reasons for the existence of the purpose of illegal possession and its basic meaning,that is,whether the purpose of illegal possession is necessary and the reasons for excluding the meaning of restriction;while the latter discusses the evolution of the theory of the object of illegal possession,that is,the theory of the existence form of things,the theory of the value of things,compromise.The third chapter points out that whether the use of theft constitutes theft depends on the interpretation of the constitutive elements of theft,that is,whether the composition of the crime of theft implies the use of theft.The use of theft,which causes serious infringement on the victim,meets the requirements of the legal interests of theft and is punishable.Through the critical use of foreign experience for reference,it is not necessary for China to amend the criminal law on the punishment of theft,but only to make a developmental interpretation of the composition of the crime of theft.The exclusion of the purpose of illegal possession is interpreted as the meaning of obstructing the use,and there is no semantic problem of the law.Based on the necessity of protecting the legal interests,it is reasonable to adopt the comprehensive theory of the object of illegal possession.The use of theft is the theft of intrinsic value or original use of other people's property,which conforms to the comprehensive view.The perpetrator has the intention of obstructing the use and obstructing the use of the victim,thus constituting the crime of theft.The use of theft does not damage the property itself,hinders the use of the victim and causes the victim to pay a considerable consideration,so the amount comes from the possibility of the victim's use.The fourth chapter specifically discusses qualitative issues regarding the special circumstances of the use of theft.In the case of the use of theft for other purposes,the purpose of the use shall be to distinguish between the purpose of destruction after a temporary use and the purpose of abandonment after a temporary use.The former shall be convicted of theft and deliberate destruction of property;the latter shall be deemed to be the crime of theft.As regards the post-disposal behavior of theft,the post-use destruction cannot be considered as an impunity for theft,but should be considered as a crime of deliberate destruction of property;and after the use,the abandonment and the use of theft Infringement of the homogeneity of the legal interest and the persistence and integrity of the meaning of the nuisance,it is considered a crime of theft.