Case study questions that belong to criminal law, criminal law case analysis questions answers

The law of our country should be applied in this case. Article 7 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates: "Where a citizen of the People's Republic of China commits a crime provided for in this Law outside the territory of the People's Republic of China, this Law shall apply, but the maximum penalty provided for in this Law shall not be prosecuted if the maximum penalty is up to three years imprisonment."

In this case, the statutory maximum sentence for the crime of theft committed by X A is more than three years, and the Criminal Law of our country shall be applied. And A is a cadre of the Industrial and Commercial Bureau and a state functionary. In accordance with the provisions of Article 7, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Law:

This Law shall apply to State functionaries and servicemen of the People's Republic of China who commit crimes under this Law outside the territory of the People's Republic of China." In other words, even if a person commits not the crime of theft, but other crimes with a statutory penalty of less than three years, such as the crime of bigamy, the criminal law of our country should still apply. Because state functionaries and military personnel are special personnel, and they represent the image of the country and the military abroad, and if they commit crimes abroad, the harm will be greater, so China's criminal law applies to this case.

Article 7 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China provides that citizens of the People's Republic of China are outside the territory of the People's

Whoever commits a crime provided for in this Law shall be subject to this Law, but shall be subject to the maximum penalty provided for in this Law.

where it is up to three years imprisonment, it may not be pursued.

Article 10: Any crime committed outside the territory of the People's Republic of China shall be in accordance with this Law.

A person who is criminally responsible may still be subject to this law despite being tried in a foreign country.

However, where they have already received a criminal punishment in a foreign country, they may be waived or commuted.

Light penalties.

All three constituted a robbery.

robbery; C's conduct violated Article 269 of the Criminal Code and therefore constituted the crime of robbery;

Although A and B did not directly commit acts of violence against C, because A and B had communicated with C in advance with the criminal intent of theft, and when they jointly committed the premeditated criminal act with C, they clearly knew that C had committed acts of violence against others and allowed them to do so, so the jurisprudence of full responsibility for a part of the joint crime can be applied to determine that A and B and C together constitute the crime of robbery.

Robbery, joint crime. Although the negotiation was about theft, in the course of the execution, when someone was encountered, he used violence on the spot to eliminate resistance and rob the property to achieve the purpose of illegal possession. Although only C was involved in the violence, both A and B were aware of it, recognized and cooperated, and jointly realized the illegal transfer of property.

All three were co-perpetrators of transformational robbery. Article 269 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China commits the crime of theft, fraud, or robbery, and uses violence or threats of violence on the spot in order to conceal stolen goods, resist arrest, or destroy criminal evidence, and is to be convicted and punished in accordance with the provisions of article 263 of this Law. Article 263 stipulates that whoever robs public or private property by violence, coercion or other means shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years and shall also be fined; In any of the following circumstances, a sentence of 10 or more years imprisonment, life imprisonment or death is to be given, and a concurrent fine or confiscation of property is to be given:

1) Entering a home to rob a house; (2) Robbery on public transportation; (3) Robbery of banks or other financial institutions; (4) Multiple robberies or robberies where the amount of money involved is huge; (5) Robbery causing serious injury or death; (6) Pretending to be military or police personnel to rob; (7) Robbery with a gun; (8) Looting military supplies or emergency rescue, disaster relief, or relief materials.

Although they agreed to commit theft at the beginning, they were both perpetrators and constituted joint crimes. However, C resisted arrest and used violence to stop D's movements, which turned into robbery. According to the principle of partial acts and collective acts, A and B are also transformed into robbery.

So the three of them constituted a joint crime of robbery.

1. Zhang.

3. Wang Wu constituted a crime.

2, Zhang San snatched, Wang Wu stolerate.

3. The crime of snatching satisfies three elements: (a) coercive behavior (including intoxication and drunkenness) is sufficient to make the victim unable to resist (c) obtaining property held by others.

Theft is sufficient in terms of behavior, and the illegal transfer of property in the possession of another person is sufficient.

4. Emergency avoidance.

5. There is danger occurring, is occurring, sacrificing smaller interests in exchange for greater benefits, necessity, risk avoidance intention, cannot exceed the necessary limit, subject restrictions (such as police).

1. Zhang 3 and Wang 5 constitute a crime, 2. Zhang 3 constitutes the crime of robbery, which belongs to the crime of robbery in other ways (fascinated, drunken) to make the victim lose resistance and take money, Wang 5 constitutes the crime of theft, and the crime of theft refers to the illegal purpose of making the property in the lawful possession of another person become his own property, which violates the right of ownership or possession, 3. B establishes emergency avoidance, 4. Emergency avoidance, requires 1) that there is a danger and is not limited to illegal acts, 2. there is no better solution, 3. The damage caused must be less than the danger suffered, and the justifiable defense may be less than, equal to, or greater than.

1, same floor.

2, Zhang San constituted robbery, and Wang Wu constituted theft.

1.Constitutes the crime of arson.

2.The criterion for the crime of arson is completed and attempted"Independent combustion said", that is, whether the ignited object can burn independently without the help of external force, obviously the yarn has been burned and can burn on its own, but at a slower speed.

2.To constitute the crime of fire, he should have realized that littering cigarette butts in the textile factory might cause disaster, but he failed to realize it due to negligence, which constituted negligence.

Conviction and punishment: transformative robbery and attempted intentional homicide Combined punishment analysis: First, the theft was attempted, but the security guard was attacked during the theft (just about to leave indicates that the theft was not over), forming a transformative robbery.

After the incident (returning home to indicate that the transformative robbery has ended), wanting to kill the person to kill the mouth (forming intentional homicide), returning to the door of the unit (more inclined to have the urgency of the crime, so more inclined to commit the attempt, rather than preparing for the crime) was arrested but did not succeed, it constitutes an attempt to kill the intention.

There are 2 acts, so they are punished for several crimes.

Li should be punished concurrently for the crime of robbery and intentional homicide (preparation). The act of stealing and injuring a security guard is converted into robbery, and preparing to kill the mouth after returning home is a preparatory act for homicide.

Li committed two crimes. One is the crime of theft; The second is the crime of intentional homicide. 1. Li had committed theft, but attempted because the safe was too strong; 2. Li had the intention of killing people and had prepared tools to kill people, but he attempted to kill because the public security officers came too quickly.

Therefore, Li was convicted of theft (attempt) and homicide (attempt), and punished concurrently for several crimes, because all the crimes he committed were attempted, so he was given a lighter punishment.

Theft + Intentional Injury + Attempted Homicide ?

Not criminally responsible.

On the surface, Su's mother and Su should be responsible for Su's father's death, but in fact they are not.

In terms of the composition of a crime, we say that the general composition of a crime should be judged from the subject, subjective, object, and objective aspects of whether a crime is constituted.

There is no doubt that Su and Su Mu persuaded their father to commit suicide and subjectively pursue the result of his death, which was directly intentional.

Su Su's mother is an adult, and there is no problem with the main body.

It is important that the object and objectivity. The established object here is the right to life of Su's father. Then, if we want to pursue the criminal responsibility of Su's mother and Su for their father's death, their acts should have a causal relationship with Su's father's death, so as to cause the harmful consequences of Su's father's death and achieve the purpose of infringing on Su's father's right to life (i.e., object).

Let's see what the case says. What did Su Mu do objectively? She just instigated Su's father to commit suicide, but what about Su?

Throw the rope at your feet at Su's feet. From the perspective of the theory of causality in criminal law, these two acts could not directly lead to the death of Su's father, but what was the reason for Su's father's direct death? Su's father's own poisoning and hanging.

The case did not mention Su's father as a person with limited capacity. Therefore, there is no causal relationship between Su and Su's mother's actions and Su's father's death, let alone the issue of attempt.

Definitely negative, and both are intentional homicide.

First of all, in terms of the subject of the crime, Su and his mother are both persons with full criminal capacity. In terms of the object of the crime, both Su and his mother violated Su's father's right to life and health; From the subjective aspect, Su provided tools for his father, although his father committed suicide, he provided the tools, and the subjective meaning was intentional, and Su's mother, in order to let the father confess the guilt to her son, took the initiative to propose that her father commit suicide, so it also constituted intentional in the subjective aspect.

First of all, Zhang's actions were intentional homicide.

According to the theory of the constitution of a crime, the "Four Elements Theory": In the subjective aspect, Zhang had the intention to kill Li and pursued the result of Li's death. Objectively, Zhang carried out the harmful act of assassinating Li.

In terms of the object of the crime, Li's right to life was violated. In terms of subjects, the subject of intentional homicide is a general subject, and Zhang is also satisfied.

According to the theory of the composition of the crime, the "three elements theory": in terms of the appropriateness of the constituent elements, Zhang carried out the act of assassinating Li. In terms of illegality, Zhang's killing of Li did not have legitimate defense, emergency avoidance, or other illegal obstruction reasons.

In terms of responsibility, Zhang actively carried out the killing and pursued the result of Li's death.

Whether it is the "three elements" or the "four elements", Zhang's conduct satisfies the crime of intentional homicide.

Second, there is no direct causal relationship under criminal law between the outcome of Li's death and Zhang's killing.

Li was not killed after being assassinated by Zhang, but was run over by a speeding vehicle. This involves the determination of causation in criminal law, and the so-called "cause" of causality refers to the harmful act, and the "effect" is the harmful result.

In this question, there is an intervening factor between Li's death and Zhang's assassination, that is, the rolling of the vehicle, and the generation of this intervening factor: 1is independent of Li's assassination (antecedent act), 2

It is an anomaly and not a normal occurrence. Therefore, the intervening factors independently led to Li's death, severing the causal relationship between Zhang's criminal behavior and the result of Li's death.

Third, Zhang's criminal conduct was an attempt to commit a crime.

Because the intervening factors independently led to Li's death, there was no causal relationship between Li's death and Zhang's assassination, so Zhang's killing did not directly cause Li's death, and according to the theory of criminal form, the criminal result pursued by Zhang was not realized, it was an unfinished criminal form, and Zhang's act was an attempt to commit intentional homicide. Because Zhang pursued the result of Li's death, it was not realized because of objective reasons. At the same time, in the subjective aspect, Li did not take the initiative to give up the subjective factor of the crime, and Zhang's killing had already begun to be carried out and was at the end of the implementation, so Zhang was an attempt to commit a crime.