The Qualitative Analysis Of Couriers' Behavior Of Stealing Express

In the case of express delivery,there is a dispute on the crime of occupational embezzlement and theft for the act of the courier to steal the express.And the extent of the controversy depends on the specific action in different process.In this paper,I will talk about the disputes in the process of the sorting and delivery of the express,which are obviously different.Therefore,I introduce the judicial cases of sorting type and delivery type,analyze the cases and the focus of the controversy,and raise the question that needs to be studied,which is how to distinguish the crime of occupational embezzlement and theft in the case of express delivery.Generally,in the controversial cases of the two crimes,the legal actor is the unit staff,and the stolen property is also the unit property.Therefore,the core of distinguishing the two crimes is the objective aspect of the act.The case of express delivery conforms to the above situation.At present,there are two common methods to distinguish the tow crimes.One is to judge whether the behavior of the legal actor did take the advantage of his position,the other is to judge whether the legal actor has already possessed the property of the unit in advance.In fact,the two methods are based on the different definition of the crime of occupational embezzlement.The first method means that the behavior means of the crime of occupational embezzlement includes various ways such as embezzlement,theft and fraud,while the secondmethod means that the behavior means of the crime of occupational embezzlement only includes embezzlement.I think the means of the crime of official embezzlement are various because of the legislative evolution and system explanation of the crime of official embezzlement,so in this paper I will use the first method to distinguish the two crimes in the case of express delivery.In addition,according to the article 253,paragraph 2,of the Criminal law of the People's Republic of China,if a postal worker illegally open mail and steal property,then he will be given heavier punishment for theft.Actually,this article can't be directly applied to the express cases because it's a kind of legal fiction,and in some cases it can be a reference but in others it can't.'Taking advantage of occupational convenience' means people can charge,manage or handle the property according to his responsibilities.Actually,the power to manage the property is the key,and the behavior of the perpetrator taking advantage of his position means he violated the trust of the unit.There are two factors that affect the identification of special power in express cases,one is whether the courier independently manages the property of the unit,the other is whether the courier possesses the express.Whether the express sorter manages the property of the unit independently or not depends on whether he works under the supervision measures of the unit,and the express deliverer must manage the property of the unit independently.According to the possession theory,if the courier control the express exclusively,he will possess the whole express.The express is a king of sealed thing,according to the distinction of possession theory,the courier does not possess the contents of the express,the courier company(legal person)is the possessor of the contents of the express.In view of the behavior of the couriers who illegally occupy the whole express as their own,the above two factors should be considered for the confirmation of the convenience of the couriers' duties,and in this case,the two factors basically have the same meaning in essence.As for the behavior of possessing the express contents illegally,at this time,whether the courier is the possessor of the express content is not important,the key is the courier's power and whether he possesses the whole express,because being the possessor of the express contents won't have an impact on thecourier's power,being the possessor of the whole express means he controls the value of the unit property.In terms of the judicial cases of sorting type introduced in this paper,the sorters work under the supervision of the unit,so they do not have the job connotation of independent management of the property of the unit,and they do not possess the whole express.The act of illegally possessing the contents of express delivery constitutes theft.As for the case of delivery type introduced in this paper,the working environment of the courier is not monitored by the unit,so they have the job connotation of independent management of the property of the unit,and they also possess the whole express.Even if the courier does not possess the contents of the express,the illegal possession of the contents also abuse the occupational convenience,which should be punished of the crime of occupational embezzlement.