Why do you get a high score for the case questions in the criminal law exercises?

If it is a problem in the general provisions, it will be the relevant principles and the composition of the principle with its main doctrines, for example, the principle of legality of crimes, the definition of the principle and its several meanings, such as the prohibition of analogy, the prohibition of cruel criminal law, the prohibition of repetition of the law, etc., and then the main points of view, subjective and objective theory, etc., it is best to add the relevant provisions in the criminal law of our country, of course, it also depends on what the topic itself is asking, if it is an essay question, the more detailed the better.

As for the topic of the sub-provisions, it is necessary to state the charges of the crime in combination with the case, and through the dismantling of the specific circumstances in the case and the subjectivity and objective elements of the change of the crime, one by one correspondence, and then consider whether there are mitigating circumstances and the possibility of expectation and other conviction theories to make a judgment on their sentencing, of course, if it is a multiple-crime crime, it is necessary to consider the issue of whether to combine the punishment or choose one of the heavier ones, and in addition, it is also necessary to consider the requirements of some special crimes for the subject and body to determine their conviction and sentencing.

This is some of my personal experience in taking the exams last year, hehe.

Let's start with the problem. Answer any questions you want. If an explanation is required, it is necessary to analyze the case closely, apply legal interpretations, and list the applicable legal provisions in the case.

The case analysis must be combined with the case, the legal provisions must be clearly stated, and the case can be analyzed in combination with the provisions of the law, which is simple and clear.

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.

Hypothesis one:

Answer: B's conduct is guilty of intentional destruction of property.

Analysis: This topic deals with the theory of property crime and the determination of causal error. First of all, in the crime of infringing on property, if the perpetrator has the purpose of illegal possession, the crime of acquisition (such as theft, robbery, snatching, fraud, etc.) is established, and if not, the crime of destruction of property is established or not guilty.

Then this is to analyze the composition of the purpose of illegal possession, and the purpose of illegal possession has two parts, one is the intention of exclusion, that is, to achieve the intention of hindering the use of property by others. Rather, it means to use, that is, to use and dispose of property in accordance with the possible usage. In this case, B only has the intention of exclusion, that is, by destroying A's mobile phone, A loses the use of the mobile phone, so B's act meets the conduct of the crime of intentional destruction of property, and the crime of intentional destruction of property is established.

Suppose B's act is guilty of intentional destruction of property, but the problem arises, B destroys it, but B envisions destroying it after walking out of A's house, but in fact destroys the mobile phone just after arriving at the door, and from the perspective of the act, B begins to carry out the act of intentional destruction of property (because B walks out with a mobile phone, and there is an imminent and real danger of causing damage to A's mobile phone), but because the actual result is different from what the perpetrator expected, it is handled according to the causal error. That is, the deliberate destruction of property.

Hypothesis 2: Answer: B's conduct is guilty of intentional destruction of property.

Analysis: The basic principle is the same as hypothesis 1, but one thing needs to be noted, that is, B did not smash A's mobile phone, can the crime of intentional destruction of property be established in this case? But the implication is yes, because destruction is not only physical damage, loss.

It also includes a loss of utility. For example, in this case, A's mobile phone is for use, but B excludes A's use of his mobile phone with the intention of exclusion, which is in fact equivalent to A not having this mobile phone.

Hypothesis 3: Answer: If B's act does not consider the amount, the crime of embezzlement is established (the amount required for the crime of embezzlement is 10,000 yuan). But on the merits, B is not guilty.

Analysis: As in the previous analysis of property crimes, at this time, B not only has the intention of excluding, but also has the intention of exploiting, and the mobile phone is a forgotten thing for A, and the forgotten thing refers to the thing that is not in the possession of others without the intention of the person, and is accidentally (i.e., not based on the entrustment relationship) in the possession of the perpetrator or the possessor is unknown. Then the perpetrator takes possession of the forgotten thing for the purpose of illegal possession, and the crime of misappropriation is established.

Hypothesis 1: It is an accident and does not constitute a crime.

Hypothesis 2: Constitutes the crime of wilful destruction of property.

Hypothesis 3: Constitutes the crime of misappropriation.