"The facts of this case have been investigated, the court investigation has been completed, and the court arguments are now begining. Court debates revolve around disputed facts that have not been certified by the court and how the law should be applied based on the facts.

I will now turn to the Public Prosecutor. The presiding judge looked at the prosecutor's bench.

"Presiding Judge and Judge: The prosecutor believes that the defendant Jin Dachun defrauded the victim of money for the purpose of illegally taking possession of other people's property on the grounds of exorcising ghosts, the facts are clear, the evidence is credible and sufficient, and the defendant has constituted the crime of fraud. Moreover, the amount of fraud is huge, and it is recommended that the defendant be sentenced to eight years in prison. Complete. The female prosecutor spoke confidently.

……

"The defendant's defender gives his defense opinion." The presiding judge walked through the procedure step by step.

"Presiding Judge and Judge: The defender has no objection to the facts of the crime alleged by the prosecutor, but has objections to the characterization of this case, and the defendant's conduct in this case does not constitute the crime of fraud, but should constitute the crime of theft, for the following reasons:

1. In this case, the defendant used both deception (exorcising ghosts and fooling people) and stealing (subcontracting) to encroach on the property of others, and the nature of the defendant's conduct in this case is theft or fraud, and the key is to see whether the means that played a decisive role in the actor's acquisition of property were theft or deception.

The defender argued that in the crime of fraud, the punishment of the deceived person must be based on a misunderstanding, and the misunderstanding arises due to the perpetrator's deceptive behavior.

In general fraud cases, the victim's awareness of disposing of property has three characteristics:

1. Based on this misunderstanding, the victim has the intention of disposing of specific property.

2. The victim 'consciously and voluntarily' disposes of specific property under the guidance of a misunderstanding.

3. The victim clearly knows that the disposition of specific property is a transfer of control of the property.

The act of disposition means the transfer of property to the possession of the defendant or a third party, that is, the actual disposition of the property by the actor or a third party, and does not require the deceived person to dispose of the ownership of the property to the defendant.

In the case of theft, the victim has neither the awareness of disposing of the property nor the act of disposing of the property.

In this case, the purpose of the victim Niu Tianyu and others temporarily handing over the property was to allow the defendant to use the property to ask God to "cast a spell to exorcise ghosts", and although the property had been formally delivered to the defendant's actual possession and was not in the victim's hands, it was still in the victim's home and was within the scope of control in the legal sense.

Of course, the victim has actual control over the property in his home, and even if the victim hands over the property to the defendant, according to the general concept of society, the victim still controls and controls the property, that is, the victim temporarily delivers the property without transferring the right to control the property, let alone transferring the ownership of the property, so such delivery cannot be found to have the intention and act of disposing of the property.

In this case, although the property was temporarily held in the hands of the defendant, the victim subjectively did not intend for the defendant to obtain control of the property, and objectively the defendant did not obtain actual control of the property, and the victim only asked him to use the property to ask God to 'cast a spell to exorcise ghosts', and did not agree to the defendant taking away the property, so although the victim was deceived, he did not have the intention or act of transferring the property to the defendant's disposal and control.

The reason why the defendant obtained the control and control of the property was entirely due to the subsequent act of secretly stealing the property.

The prosecutor alleged that the defendant's conduct constituted the crime of fraud, that is, the defendant established that the fraud was completed when he received the property, and even if the defendant later returned the property to the victim, it was also an act of returning the property after the fraud was completed, which is inconsistent with the facts of this case and does not conform to legal principles.

2. The defendant's illegal acquisition of property was achieved by means of secret theft by means of subcontracting.

The defendant's use of 'casting spells to exorcise ghosts' to induce the victim to hand over the property to the defendant as props is of a fraudulent nature, but the defendant did not rely on the fraudulent act to directly obtain the property, but only created the conditions for the subsequent act of secret theft.

In this process, the defendant only temporarily held the property, and when the defendant "cast a spell to exorcise ghosts", the victim still did not lose possession of the property, and the defendant could stop casting the spell and return the property at any time.

Therefore, the temporary possession of property obtained by fraud is not an act of purpose of the defendant, but only an act of auxiliary means to achieve the purpose of possession of the property.

In addition, according to the evidence in the case, the defendant's act of "subcontracting" was a secret theft, and its secrecy was reflected in:

1. During the contract transfer, the defendant drove the victim away from the scene of the spell on the pretext of avoiding the disaster, and the defendant subjectively did not want the victim to know.

2. The means of subcontracting are not known to the victims

3. After the transfer, the victim did not know that the property was actually controlled by the defendant.

In summary, the defendant carried out the secret method of "subcontracting", so that the property in this case was transferred from the victim's hand to the defendant's hand, and the defendant finally obtained the actual control of the property through the subcontracting, so the defendant's conduct met the characteristics of the crime of theft and secret theft. The defense argued that the defendant's actions constituted theft

In view of the fact that the defendant truthfully confessed the facts of the crime after being brought into the case and showed remorse, the defender suggested that the court give the defendant a lighter punishment and sentence the defendant to a suspended sentence. Complete. Meng Guangda spoke.

……

After more than two hours of hearing, the collegial panel finally pronounced the verdict in court.

The county court held that the defendant Jin Dachun, for the purpose of illegal possession, used secret means to steal other people's property, and the amount was huge, and his conduct constituted the crime of theft.

In the course of committing the crime, Jin Dachun first used the method of fabricating facts to deceive others into taking out the property, and then took the opportunity to steal the property by means of subcontracting, and the deception was linked to the theft, but the main way in which he illegally obtained the property was secretly stealing, and the act of deceiving others did not directly obtain the property to be illegally possessed, but only created conditions for the realization of the theft, so his conduct should not be found to be the crime of fraud.

The facts of the public prosecution's accusation that Jin Dachun illegally took possession of other people's property are clear, and the evidence is credible and sufficient, but the charge of committing fraud is improper, and it is changed.

Defendant Jin Dachun truthfully confesses the facts of the crime after being brought into the case, and may be given a lighter punishment as appropriate. In accordance with the provisions of Article 264, Article 25, Paragraph 1, Article 52, and Article 53 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, the defendant Jin Dachun committed the crime of theft and was sentenced to three years imprisonment and a fine of 20,000 yuan.

Zhao Huilan wiped her tears vigorously in the auditorium, and was sentenced to three years in prison, deducting the time of her previous detention, and squatting in the prison for more than two years.

Today's four watches, there is another chapter, which is being played by hand, and it will be updated at six o'clock in the evening.