Two contradictory criminal law questions, two minor criminal law issues

Question 1 is definitely not guilty!! First of all, the crime of traffic accident is not among the 8 crimes, your point of view is a bit biased, the difference between intentional homicide and traffic accident crime is still quite big, intentional homicide requires subjective intention, and traffic accident crime is negligence, the two crimes do not overlap!!

Question 2: If you want to be convicted, I think you should be convicted, the crime of breaking water is not among the 8 types of crimes, and the crime of breaking water does not conform to the principle of legality!!

1. Not guilty, the crime of traffic accident is a crime of negligence, and a person aged 14 or 16 is not criminally responsible for a crime of negligence;

2. The crime of breaching water. It's just a way to achieve the goal of breaking the water, and the end behavior absorbs the means behavior.

Question 1: Not guilty. Same reasons as above.

The second question, ** sin. A water breach is caused by **. Second, his original subjective motive was for **, not to break the water. The three crimes of water breaching do not fall into the 8 categories.

1. The mortgage between Party A and the bank is established.

Reason: a. According to the provisions of the loan, in order to ensure that the borrower can repay the loan on time and in full in the future, a mortgage registration system has been established for the collateral, so in principle, the mortgage registration procedures should be gone through for the collateral used for loan security.

b. However, due to some special reasons, the mortgage registration procedures are not completed in time, but as long as the collateral issued by the borrower is a collateral that can be possessed, used, benefited and disposed of, then the mortgage agreement is valid.

c. However, due to the defects in the mortgage, if the borrower has mortgaged the collateral to other people unexpected by the bank, then the bank will cause resistance in the process of asserting the creditor's rights, because the mortgage priority system is a statutory system, and the bank can only get the proceeds of the creditor's rights under the premise of giving priority to the interests of the mortgagee when claiming the rights.

2. The court should decide: a. to confirm the validity of the house sale and purchase agreement between Party A and Party C; b. Order Party A to refund Party B's purchase price and become an economic loss to Party B.

Reason: a. According to the relevant provisions of China's property law, the transfer of immovable property is subject to registration, accordingly, Party C went through the registration procedures for the transfer of real estate in a timely manner after purchasing the house from Party A, and Party C did not know that Party A had previously signed a house sale agreement with Party B, and Party C was a bona fide third party in law, and the rights of a bona fide third party should be protected in accordance with the law. Although Party C has not paid all or part of the purchase price to Party A, this is an agreement between Party A and Party C on the payment of the purchase price, and does not fall within the scope of the right to confirm the trial of this case.

b. Since Party A signed a sale and purchase agreement based on the house with Party B before transferring the property to Party C, the legal consequences caused by it shall be borne by Party A, and Party B shall refund the purchase price of Party B in full and bear the economic losses caused by the sale and purchase behavior to Party B.

First of all, this is not criminal law, this is a typical property law.

Question 2: If the mortgage contract is established, the mortgage right must be registered with the registration authority before it becomes effective.

Question 5: B can only hold A liable for breach of contract. In general, a change in ownership can only occur when a real estate is registered. B does not have the right to bring a counterclaim because the counterclaim is directed against a specific person or thing. Contracts of A, B and C are all valid contracts.

1 This is the property law does not know the criminal law 2, because for registration, the bank can breach the contract and sue A 3, A and C are registered.

1. A's behavior is illegal, and this contract is invalid.

2. The ownership is still given to A, B, and C.

See the next page for the next question hahaha.

1、a 2、c

The difference between the two questions is mainly that one of the two security guards is invited and the other is dispatched, and the embezzlement of duties is the use of the convenience of the position to encroach on the property of the unit, which is in line with the second question; In the first question, the boss did not lose control of the belongings, and the two security guards took the property of others who were legally in their possession for their own purposes, which was theft. The crime of fraud can obviously be ruled out.

1) A committed a joint crime with the intent to kill and C with the intention of theft, because A did not want to steal but wanted to kill, which is an objective reason for C, but A did have the possibility of theft after entering the house, and it cannot be determined that he could not commit it, so C is an attempted theft.

2) The act is not theft because there is no legal interest stolen.

3) A and B can become accomplices within the scope of theft, and the amount of theft is 20,000 yuan, and A alone establishes the crime of intentional homicide.

Specifically, to explain to you the last two, objectively, there is indeed a legal interest that has been stolen, and after A enters the house, whether it is with the intention of killing or whatever, invading other people's houses is an imminent danger to the legal interests (which can be life or property). A's temporary intention to take money must be theft for himself, which you can understand, and for C, there is also a subjective purpose of theft, and at the same time, the fact of theft has also occurred, and the legal interests have been infringed, and it is determined to be theft within the scope of subjective and objective consistency.

Note that Zhang Mingkai (or Yamaguchi Hou) is a legal compliance theory from the standpoint of objectivism, and don't start to overthrow the criminal composition from the subjective point of view, one push and one wrong! Rather, it is necessary to judge whether the objective and the subjective can be reconciled.