| The main controversial focuses of analysis of series cases about Li’s Internet contract fraud case are how to judge the action that the actor conduct false publicity,sign a contract,and defraud the property of the opposite person on the Internet,whether the case is individual crime or unit crime,and the dispute over the amount of crime after conviction.The key to judge the action is to distinguish contract fraud,civil contract disputes and fraud.First of all,according to whether the actor subjectively has the purpose of "illegal possession" and "whether or not to commit fraud",judge whether the actor’s crime belongs to a criminal offence or a civil contract dispute.It analyzes the purpose of illegal possession of Li when he sign and perform contract,analyzes the reliability of the main qualifications of the actors in economic activities abroad,and considers the willingness and the ability when performing the contract.The perpetrators forge business qualifications objectively,and carry out false propaganda to package to attract the victims.The perpetrators actually do not have the ability to perform the contract.They use fake shots and bills to stabilize the victims and further lure the victims to purchase service packages.Identify the action as contract fraud rather than civil contract disputes because of swindling more money and serious social harm.Distinguish this crime from the other crimes on the basis of whether it constitutes a criminal offense,that is,in the case of Li in the content of the contract and in the process of signing and performing the contract,by incompletely performing the content of the contract to deceive the trust of the victim,and other means,defining the case as contract crime rather than fraud.Then,analyzes the constitution of contract fraud crime and excludes the negative elements to determine the subject of the crime belongs to individual crime rather than unit crime.Finally,in the analysis of the case,it further discusses the principle of adaptability of crime,duty and punishment,and the principle of benefiting the accused for doubted crime to determine the amount of crime. |
