1. If the debtor or a third party steals the pledged property retained by the pledgee, it infringes on the pledgee's possession and income of the pledged property, which conforms to the characteristics of theft.
2. After Party A lent his motorcycle to Party B, he stole it from Party B and accepted Party B's "compensation". When all one's own property is occupied by others, if the actor steals the property occupied by others, the crime of theft is established; If Party A steals Party B's laptop and Party B uses threats to force Party A to return it, the crime of extortion is not established. However, if Party B uses threats to force Party A to provide other property, the crime of extortion may still be established.
3. If the victim of theft (A) steals all his stolen motorcycles from the thief (B), because B's possession of motorcycles is opposed to the owner's, and there is no reasonable reason for this confrontation, compared with the owner's exercise of rights, B's possession of motorcycles is not the object of property crimes, so if A steals back the motorcycle, it is not a crime of property infringement.
4. The perpetrator moved the computer out of the victim's house on the eighth floor and then fell downstairs from the stairs on the seventh floor, causing the computer to be destroyed. If the perpetrator moves the computer out for the purpose of illegal possession, it is still a crime of theft just because he meets the victim or falls the computer downstairs for other reasons; If the above acts are carried out only for the purpose of simple destruction without the purpose of illegal possession, the crime of intentional destruction of property is established.
5. Party B often invites Party A's wife to play mahjong, which leads to discord between the husband and wife. One day, Party B invited Party A's wife to Party B's house to play mahjong. After learning this, Party A came to Party B's house, overturned the mahjong table, slapped Party B several times, and said to Party B, "You have destroyed my family, so you must pay 5 yuan." Although A committed acts of violence against B, it was not enough to restrain B's resistance from the circumstances at that time, so it should not be regarded as robbery, but as extortion.
6. A commits violence against B, forcing B to deliver property, but B is penniless. If A orders B to take property from home immediately, or go to B's home together to get property, it shall be deemed as robbery. After the perpetrator commits violence, he finds that the victim is penniless, and then asks the victim to deliver the property in the future. In principle, it should be recognized as robbery (attempted) and extortion, and combined punishment should be implemented. Source: Beautiful women with big exams
7. A certain soldier met four children aged 1 to 12 in the village at the entrance to play, so he asked them for money, and the four children said they had no money. A found out one of the children, B, tied it up, hung it upside down, whipped it with a whip, and burned it with a cigarette butt, causing minor injuries. Then tell B and the other three children to pay at the designated place the next day, otherwise the consequences will be more serious than B. The next day, each child handed over to 2 yuan and 3 yuan. The behavior of A should be regarded as robbery.
8. Party A sneaked into Party B's house late at night to steal. Party A turned into the kitchen through the window and entered the living room, and was found by Party B.. When B arrested A, A violently attacked B in order to refuse to arrest, resulting in minor injuries to B.. Because A has the intention of committing theft, and this crime dominates the crime, it meets the conditions of "committing theft" and should be regarded as robbery.
9, 15-year-old A sneaked into B's house and stole 5 yuan in cash from B's drawer. Just then, B's son C (14 years old) came home from school. In order to hide the stolen goods, A violently attacked C, resulting in minor injuries to C.. Although A has not reached the age of criminal responsibility for theft, his theft is still carried out under the deliberate control of theft, so it meets the conditions of "committing theft" and should be considered as quasi-robbery. Source: Beauty with a big exam: We
1. When A and B*** committed theft together, C found out that A and B escaped, and A escaped, but after B was arrested by C, C was seriously injured by violence. Obviously, the behavior of A and B constitutes the crime of theft, but because B has committed another crime of robbery, B can only be regarded as a crime of robbery.
11. Party A invited Party B to keep watch for his theft, and Party B agreed to go outside the residence of Party C as agreed; However, while stealing, A used violence on the spot to hide stolen goods, but B knew nothing about it. Obviously, A's behavior constitutes robbery. The question is, what should be done with B? If it is denied that A and B are guilty of the same crime, it means that the behavior of B cannot be treated as a crime. This is obviously unreasonable. The behavior of B can not be identified as theft alone, because there is no implementation behavior. Therefore, on this occasion, we should adopt the theory of * * * with part of the crime, and find that A and B are guilty of * * * with the crime within the scope of theft, and that B is punished as the * * * crime of theft, and A is separately identified as robbery.
12. Zhang San instigated Li Si to commit theft, and Li Si turned into robbery in the process of committing theft. How should we deal with this? First of all, Li Si should be regarded as robbery. Secondly, Zhang San should be regarded as an instigator of theft, and the second paragraph of Article 29 of the Criminal Law cannot be applied. Because in fact, without Zhang San's instigation, Li Si would not commit theft, let alone turn it into robbery; There is a causal relationship between Zhang San's instigation and Li Si's robbery. According to the theory of some crimes, Zhang San and Li Si were convicted of * * * within the scope of theft. In other words, because the crime committed by Li Si includes theft, it does not meet the conditions of the second paragraph of Article 29 of the Criminal Law.
13. Three people, such as Class A, attempted to kill taxi driver B and rob his property. After getting on the bus, Class A asked Party B to drive the car to a remote place, then violently attacked Party B and strangled Party B.. After B went into shock, A and other three people thought that B was dead, robbed the cash in the taxi and fled. B woke up afterwards with only minor injuries. It is obviously inappropriate to identify the behavior of three people as general robbery. It is also inappropriate to regard the actions of three people as intentional homicide, because the People's Court's Reply on How to Convict a Case of Intentional Homicide in the Process of Robbery on May 22, 21 stipulates: "If an actor premeditated intentional homicide in order to rob property, or intentionally killed in order to subdue the victim in the process of robbing property, he shall be convicted and punished for robbery." Therefore, it should be considered that there is an attempt to intentionally "cause serious injury and death" in robbery. Therefore, we should apply the statutory punishment stipulated in Article 263 of the Criminal Law to eight situations, and at the same time apply the provisions of attempted crime, so as to coordinate with the crime of intentional homicide.
14. The miniature blade that the perpetrator carries to cut other people's clothes pockets and handbags in order to steal property should not be called a murder weapon.
15. If Party A makes Party B walk with a murder weapon, even if Party A robs Party C's property by himself, it should be considered that Party A is robbing with a murder weapon (on the premise that Party B is on the scene, but not on the premise that Party B and Party A have the same intention). There are usually two situations in carrying behavior: first, the perpetrator prepares the murder weapon in advance, carries it all the time after going out, and then waits for an opportunity to snatch it; Second, the perpetrator obtained the murder weapon (such as picking up the iron bar on the roadside) at or near the scene before robbing, and then seized the opportunity.
16. When migrant workers go out to work, put the kitchen knife in the quilt and tie their backs behind their backs; When robbing, he was arrested by the police; The police found a kitchen knife when they looked at the quilt. In this regard, it cannot be considered as robbing with a weapon.
17. A phoned an old man who was resting at home. B: "Your daughter had an accident on the road ahead. Please go at once." B rushed to the side of the road without even locking the door, and A took the opportunity to take B's property (hereinafter referred to as the telephone case). Although A cheated, B didn't have a misunderstanding of disposing of property because of being cheated, and didn't dispose of property based on the misunderstanding. It was only because of going out that he relaxed his possession of property. A the act of taking away the property can only constitute theft.
18. Laundry manager A found a suit drying in the corridor of B's house, so he lied to our temporary worker C, saying, "B wants to wash the suit, but he has no time to deliver it; Go to B's house and get the suit drying in the corridor. " C believed it, took the suit and gave it to A, who took it for himself (hereinafter referred to as the suit case). C is obviously cheated, but he is just a tool for stealing, and he does not have the authority or status to dispose of B's suit to A.. Therefore, A is guilty of theft (indirect principal offender).
19. A pretends to buy a suit in a commodity, and the shop assistant B asks him to try on the suit. After putting on the suit, A claims to look in the mirror, and when B receives other customers, A takes the opportunity to slip away. A is obviously not guilty of fraud, but of theft. Because although B was deceived, he didn't transfer his suit to A because he was deceived. If A puts on a suit and says to B, "I need my wife's permission to buy a suit. I'll put my ID card here. If my wife agrees, I'll pay tomorrow." If my wife doesn't agree, I will return the suit tomorrow. " B agreed that A would wear the suit home, but A used a fake ID card and didn't send money or a suit to B at all the next day. Then, A's behavior constitutes fraud. Because B allows A to wear the suit home, it has actually transferred the suit to A's domination and control, which is caused by being cheated, so it conforms to the characteristics of fraud.
2. In fact, the case of borrowing a mobile phone should also be regarded as theft rather than fraud.
21. After chatting online, Party A and Party B meet in a coffee shop. After meeting and chatting for a few words, A's BP machine rang, and claimed that he forgot to bring his mobile phone, so he borrowed B's mobile phone to make a phone call. After receiving the mobile phone (sometimes the victim's mobile phone may be on the table), A pretends to make a phone call, then claims that the signal is bad and walks out of the door, taking the opportunity to escape. This kind of behavior can not be regarded as fraud, but as theft.
22. Party A didn't intend to return it, but concealed the truth and borrowed the car from Party B. After Party B delivered the car to Party A, Party A drove away. B only means to transfer possession, but A's behavior is still guilty of fraud.
23. Party C entrusts his property to Party B for safekeeping. Meanwhile, Party C calls Party B, claiming that he will send Ding to retrieve his property the next day. A who eavesdropped on the phone went to B the next day, claiming that he was sent by C, and B delivered his own property to A.. Party B who disposes of the property does not enjoy the ownership, but actually occupies the property, but this does not affect the crime of fraud.
24. After entering the subway car, B found a wallet beside his seat, so he asked A beside him, "Is this your wallet?" Although it is not A's wallet, A says, "Yes, thank you!" " So b handed the wallet to a. Because B didn't take possession of the wallet, it was impossible for him to dispose of the wallet, so A's behavior did not constitute fraud, and it could only be regarded as embezzlement or theft.
25. C is B's family nanny. When B was not at home, actor A went to B's house to cheat C and said, "B asked me to take his suit to our company for dry cleaning. I'm here to pick it up." C believed it, and A got the suit from C and fled. In this case, the behavior of Party A should also be regarded as fraud.
more than p>26 or 1 people attended the small meeting. Before the meeting, when the victim B went to the bathroom, he put his bag in his seat. B was still in the bathroom when the meeting was over, and cleaner C immediately entered the venue to clean up. At this point, A found that B's bag was still at the meeting place, so he stood outside the meeting place and said to C, "That's my bag, please pass it to me." C believed it, handed the bag to A, and A immediately fled the scene. In this case, cleaner C did not possess B's bag, nor did he have the authority or status to dispose of it. In other words, C is a tool for A to steal bags, not a property disposer in the crime of fraud. Therefore, A's behavior does not constitute fraud, but only theft.
27. Party B entrusts Party A to bring a valuable item from Beijing to Party C in Guangzhou. After taking the item to Guangzhou, Party A will directly transfer the item to Party D when he meets Ding at the station. Obviously, A's behavior constitutes a crime of embezzlement.
28. Party A holds some kind of bill of lading, thus legally possessing the goods recorded in the bill of lading; However, when the goods are actually in the possession of Party B, if Party A steals the goods, it still constitutes theft.
29. The coins thrown by tourists into the park pool belong to the property of park managers. If the actor takes these properties, it is theft rather than embezzlement.
3. Party A hasn't checked out after moving, so let friend B clean the room for him. While cleaning the bedroom, B picked up a peony smart card of ICBC from the floor. Party B didn't give this card to Party A, and four days later, he went to the ATM of an industrial and commercial bank to withdraw more than 2, yuan in three times (Party B knew the password when he accompanied Party A to withdraw money). A once asked B if he had seen this card, but B said he hadn't. After a report, B was seized. Although Party A moved, he continued to control the house because he didn't check out. In this case, all the property in the house (including Peony Link Card) is still in the possession of Party A, so Party B's behavior is guilty of theft.
31. Bicycles parked in front of other people's doors, even if they are not locked, should be considered to be owned by others. Another example is that any property hung on other people's doors and windows is owned by others. Those who obtain these properties for the purpose of illegal possession should be regarded as theft, not embezzlement.
32. The property left behind by the passengers in the taxi belongs to the taxi driver. Although it belongs to forgetting things as far as the passengers are concerned, it belongs to the taxi driver. Therefore, the act of a third party taking the property from the taxi should be regarded as theft.
33. when b locks the suitcase (which contains precious metals) and entrusts it to a for safekeeping, does a possess the precious metals in it? According to the difference theory, the whole suitcase is occupied by A, but the precious metals in it are occupied by B. A if all suitcases are illegally owned as a whole, the crime of embezzlement is established; Whoever takes out precious metals from a suitcase commits theft.
34. Coach driver B put more than 1 mobile phones bought for others into a black bag, and then put the bag behind the driver's seat (in front of the first passenger seat). When A got on the bus and sat in the first row, he found the bag and thought it belonged to C who was sitting side by side with him. After C got off the bus, A found that the bag was still in the car, so he thought C had forgotten the bag, so A got off the bus early and took it for himself. In fact, the bag belongs to B, not forgetting things, but A mistook it for forgetting things. There may also be a completely opposite situation, that is, it was originally forgetting things, but the perpetrator mistakenly thought it was the property possessed by others. According to the principle of unity of subject and object, such cases should be identified as embezzlement, but not theft.