| "Multiple theft" as one of the statutory crimes of theft,its importance is self-evident.Although the 2013 Judicial Interpretation limited the identification of "multiple theft" to "three theft within two years",there are still differences in application,and such differences have become more and more intense with the introduction of the Criminal Law Amendment(VIII).Taking the judicial cases of China Judicial Documents Network as the starting point,it is found that in practice,the identification of the number of "multiple theft",whether the theft has been handled,the role of the amount of theft in the "multiple theft",and the criminal form of theft and theft are constantly debated,which is not conducive to the protection of judicial authority and judicial justice.Combined with the legislative purpose and punishment basis of "multiple theft",the normative analysis method and empirical analysis method are adopted to demonstrate the above controversial issues.Taking the accurate identification of single theft as the logical starting point from the perspective of social harmfulness and subjective malignancy;the identification of "multiple theft" should not violate the principle of prohibiting repeated evaluation;the theft with administrative punishment can be included in the number of theft,and the amount of "multiple theft" should reach the standard of "large amount";the pattern of unfinished theft should be included in "multiple theft";finally,the legal status of "multiple theft" should be defined.By clarifying the above identification standards,it is helpful to the judicial practice together. |
