Judicial Determination Of The Illegal Transfer Of Factory Property By Assembly Line Workers

There is a great controversy in judicial practice whether the illegal transfer of factory property by factory assembly line employees should be recognized as a crime of occupation or a crime of theft.This article takes the case of job encroachment by a factory assembly line employee such as Liu Mouhui as an example to evaluate the focus of controversy in this case,namely,whether the behavior of Liu Mouhui and Liu Mouhua constitutes a crime of job encroachment or a crime of theft in legal and judicial practice.Focusing on the focus of the above controversy,relevant research methods are used to evaluate the case as follows: Firstly,analyze whether the defendant’s behavior constitutes a crime of official embezzlement.Liu Mouhui and Liu Mouhua meet the special subject conditions for the crime of official embezzlement.The tin materials handled by Liu Mouhui and others are unit properties that are actually controlled or managed by Dai Cheng Company.Taking advantage of their position,they require the perpetrator to have a physically compliant holding position or a regulatory dominant position over the embezzled unit property based on the work they are engaged in,and use this position to illegally embezzle the property,Whether the actor has a physically compliant holding position or a regulatory dominant position over the unit’s property should be judged separately from a physical and regulatory perspective.The personnel involved in the case,Liu Mouhui and Liu Mouhua,hold the handled tin material due to the job responsibilities and requirements of the wave soldering operator.From a physical perspective,they used closely held physical means to exert influence on the tin block in their work,making the tin block within the scope of their theoretical control.Due to their position,the two persons have a physically compliant holding position on the handled tin block,The behavior of the two people to cool the handled tin materials into tin blocks and take them away from the factory deviates from the interests of the unit,infringes on the public power of the unit,and belongs to the use of the convenience of their position to seize the property of the unit.Therefore,the actions of Liu Mouhui and others constitute the crime of duty embezzlement.Secondly,it analyzes whether the defendant’s behavior constitutes theft.This article analyzes the behavior style,substantive elements,and the concept of possession of theft.The essence of theft is to first destroy the possession of property by others,and then establish a new process of possession.When to establish possession of property needs to be analyzed from the constituent elements of possession and attribution determination.The person involved in the case,Liu Mouhui "Liu Mouhua secretly steals the tin blocks of factory property,destroys the legal possession of the tin blocks by the factory,and establishes his own illegal possession of the tin blocks.His behavior meets the requirements of theft.However,Liu Mouhui and Liu Mouhua’s ability to transfer the tin blocks mainly lies in their ability to handle the tin blocks based on their position convenience.This behavior also meets the requirements of transferring property by stealing in the process of job occupation.",In this case,there is a competing relationship between the crime of duty embezzlement and the crime of theft,and the principle that special law is superior to general law is applicable.In summary,the illegal transfer of factory property by Liu Mouhui and Liu Mouhua,who are involved in the case,should be recognized as the crime of duty embezzlement.Based on case evaluation and judicial practice,this paper reflects on the current legislative situation in China,ponders and summarizes the imbalance in the amount of conviction and punishment between the crime of official embezzlement and the crime of theft,and puts forward relevant suggestions.