| As a typical cross-criminal case,the practice of prying the door to rent the house of others has not reached an agreement on the nature of the practice between the criminal law theorists and judicial practitioners.The differences mainly include the following aspects: First,whether the act constitutes a crime? Second,should this act be prosecuted as the crime of trespassing on the house or as the crime of invading property? Third,if it constitutes a crime of invasion of property,so should the crime of theft or fraud to investigate criminal responsibility? This paper argues that rent the house by others as the typical door harmful to the society,only by means of civil law in order to achieve the inhibitory effect of the action is limited,this kind of behavior must be included in the scope of criminal law regulation,this behavior should in criminal rather than the civil disputes,the legal effect of unjust enrichment on the civil law does not become a deterrent criminal illegality.As a typical act of theft,prying the door to rent the house of others is difficult to be charged with the crime of theft according to the existing norms in the absence of explicit provisions in current laws.After analyzing the behavior of prying the door to rent the house of others,it is found that the behavior does not have the basic structure required by the crime of fraud,and only the fraudulent behavior cannot constitute the crime of fraud in the sense of criminal law.Some scholars argue that the doer who pry the door and change the lock to enter other people’s house without the consent of the householder should constitute the crime of illegal trespass on the house,and the rent act of illegal profit should constitute unjust enrichment in the civil law,and finally be identified as the crime of illegal trespass on the house.However,the general theory is based on the fact that the vacant house does not belong to the house,and the intrusion of the vacant house does not infringe the peace right of the members of the house.It has become a consensus that the crime of illegal invasion of residential buildings has not completed the integrity evaluation of the behavior of prying the door to rent out other people’s houses.This paper holds that the determination of a house is not only a factual judgment,but also a value judgment.It is not a standard to judge the existence of a house based on whether it is occupied.The act of intruding into others’ vacant house belongs to the act of intruding into others’ house.Other interests in exchange for building the householder explicitly give up exclusive right of control and peace,person to rent the house door to the landlord for the purpose of the failed and not attributable to property as a result of the crime,this behavior did not cause others to suffer property damage,the act does not constitute crimes against property,this behavior should belong to the crime of illegal invasion of residential. |
