Qualitative Analysis Of Criminal Law On The Illegal Possession Of Express Delivery By Couriers

The origin of this article lies in a case I encountered during my internship: a Courier in nankai district,tianjin,opened the package of the express and took the contents of the package as his own.The case was very simple,but the act involved a distinction between two charges that made the trial judge hesitant.As such cases are becoming more and more common in recent years,the presiding judge entrusted me to collect and sort out such cases,so as to make reference to the previous experience,so as to achieve the same case and the same judgment.Through the collection of such cases,the author found that the case is almost exactly the same,but the time,place,parties,but the court’s decision is not uniform.There are three kinds of verdict: crime of embezzlement,theft and innocence.Among them the proportion that qualitative is larceny is a few larger,the author did not have complete statistic,cannot get specific number accordingly.Judges who make different decisions have their own reasons.The root cause is the different understanding of several concepts in the crime of official occupation,including the main scope of the crime of official occupation,the identification of the use of official convenience,the connotation of the unit’s property,etc.In view of this situation,the author thinks that the qualitative problem of the case has the necessity to study,so write this article.The body of this paper consists of the following parts: the first part is the problem.The author lists two cases in which the cases are similar but the results of the judgment are quite different.In both cases,the Courier illegally took possession of the express delivery,but the judge in the first case characterized it as theft and the second as the crime of occupation.The second part is the introduction of a classic case,the case after the first and second instance,the procedure is relatively complex than other cases,so as to be a classic case throughout the whole text.The judgment result of this case is that the perpetrator constitutes the crime of theft,but the author thinks that there are some points worth discussing,and the author’s point of view is different from that of the judge in this case.The third part is the theoretical analysis of the constitution of the crime of official occupation,which is carried out from four aspects: the main scope of the crime of official occupation,the identification of the use of official convenience,the connotation of the property of the unit,and the distinction between the crime of official occupation and the crime of theft.The fourth part is based on the theoretical analysis results above,the analysis of the classic cases listed in this paper.