"Master and I have already gone to the detention center to meet Ge Xinggen, and what he said about the incident is generally the same as what is recorded in the case file, and he confesses to the facts of the case.

However, the victim's statement contained in the case file was different from the defendant's confession, and the victim claimed that he had been violently robbed of his property by Ge Xinggen and others.

Moreover, the victim, through her representative, repeatedly requested the judicial authorities to severely punish the defendant for robbery. "Don't look at Cheng Du's chubby, but he is articulate, logical, neat, and not annoying at all, on the contrary, it makes people feel very interesting after a long time of contact.

"The police opened a case for robbery, then the procuratorate approved the arrest for fraud, and finally the procuratorate prosecuted for theft, but the victim claimed that he had been robbed. This case is kind of interesting. Zhou Ying said thoughtfully

"Lawyer Du, what do you think? About the charges. Yu Wendong asked.

"We believe that the crime of theft is correct. The defendant's conduct constituted the crime of theft. Du Yong said.

"Why?" Yun Qiao blinked and asked.

"Let's analyze one crime after another, that's how we understand it, listen to it, and put forward your opinions:

First, the conduct of the defendant in this case, Ge Xinggen, cannot be found to be the crime of robbery.

The crime of robbery refers to the perpetrator's use of violence, coercion or other methods on the spot to forcibly seize public or private property. The only direct evidence in this case is the confession of the defendant Ge Xinggen and the statement of the victim Hu Haidan, and the evidence is one-on-one, and there is no other direct evidence to prove the statements of both parties.

In this case, the defendant Ge Xinggen did not confess that he used violence, threats and other means in the course of committing the crime, and the evidence in the case cannot prove that the defendants Ge Xinggen, Lan Shantai and Wu Wanzhong used violence, coercion and other means in the course of committing the crime, so we have reasonable doubts about the statement of the victim Hu Haidan in this case that the property was violently robbed by Ge Xinggen and others, so this case cannot be found to be a crime of robbery.

Second, the conduct of the defendant in this case, Ge Xinggen, should not be found to be the crime of fraud, but should be found to be the crime of theft.

The key to distinguishing between fraud and theft is whether the victim surrendered the property based on a misunderstanding. The crime of theft is mainly committed by stealing property secretly without the victim's knowledge.

Although both the crime of fraud and the crime of theft are crimes of infringing on property for the purpose of illegally taking possession of other people's property, the crime of fraud is the acquisition of property based on the victim's flawed will, requiring the victim to fall into a misunderstanding and dispose of the property on his own.

In the case of throwing fraud, the general method of defrauding money is that after the victim tells the bank card password based on being deceived, the victim usually hands over the property to the defendant to the so-called third party for verification, resulting in the property being defrauded.

Since the victim mistakenly believed that the defendant really went to a third party for verification and then handed over the property, which met the characteristics of disposing of property due to misunderstanding in the crime of fraud, the defendant's conduct in this case constituted the crime of fraud.

However, the circumstances of this case are different from the past, although the victim voluntarily said the bank card password, the defendant and the co-perpetrator obtained the victim's bank card not because the victim voluntarily handed it over because of a misunderstanding, but the defendant Ge Xinggen secretly obtained it under the cover of his accomplices, taking advantage of the victim's inattention, so the defendant's conduct in this case cannot be found to be the crime of fraud, but should be found to be the crime of theft. Du Yong explained.

"Just now Cheng Du said that the defendant also stole a credit card, and I remember that Article 196 of the Criminal Law stipulates that fraudulently using another person's credit card constitutes the crime of credit card fraud.

Will the defendant in this case, Ge Xinggen, be sentenced by the court to multiple crimes? Yun Qiao asked.

"No, we had this concern before, but according to the provisions of Article 196, Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Law, anyone who steals a credit card and uses it shall be convicted and punished in accordance with the provisions of Article 264 of this Law.

In other words, the defendant's act of stealing and using a credit card in this case should be convicted and punished as the crime of theft, and cannot be separately defined as the crime of credit card fraud. It is not possible to count the crimes and punish them together. Du Yong explained.

Although criminal lawyers are very familiar with the Criminal Law, not every legal article can be memorized backwards, and they are only more clear about the legal provisions they commonly use, and other legal provisions need to be queried when handling cases.

For the sake of prudence, Du Yong had asked Cheng Du to inquire about the laws of the relevant crimes before, so when Yun Qiao proposed credit card fraud, he could answer fluently.

"Lawyer Du, in this case, Ge Xinggen and three others committed the crime, two of them absconded, you just said that the only evidence that directly proves that the defendant Ge Xinggen has committed the crime of theft is the defendant's confession, and the evidence that proves that the defendant has committed the crime of robbery is only the victim's statement, so how do you determine that the defendant must constitute the crime of theft?

In other words, what circumstantial evidence did you use to determine that the defendant secretly stole and not violently robbed the victim's property? Cao Yongzheng listened more carefully, and after thinking about it, some links were not right.

"That's a bit complicated to say. Since the two co-perpetrators other than the defendant Ge Xinggen are at large and there are no eyewitnesses, the only direct evidence is the confession of the defendant Ge Xinggen and the statement of the victim Hu Haidan, and the facts proved by these two pieces of evidence are very different, in fact, this is not necessarily a bad thing.

In my opinion, the evidence on both sides is insufficient, and this is a questionable case, but the burden of proving that the defendant has constituted a certain crime lies with the public prosecution, not the defendant, and the case is in favor of the defendant, so I will make this determination. Du Yong smiled.

"'Doubts are in favor of the accused' is an important judicial principle. The application of this principle should be based on the premise that the facts are indeed impossible to ascertain, and if the facts can be ascertained through careful examination and judgment of evidence and appropriate supplemental examination of evidence, this principle should not be applied. Cao Yongzheng said, looking at Du Yong.

His meaning is very clear, is it really impossible to ascertain the facts of the case with the existing evidence?

Du Yong smiled.

"Lawyer Du, I'm not skeptical about your professional ability, I'm just curious. Don't get me wrong. Cao Yongzheng was a little embarrassed.

"It's okay, I can understand, if I come across a case that interests me, I will also break the casserole and ask to the end. I'll show you the main evidence of the case, and I'll say while you look at it. As he spoke, Du Yong motioned to Cheng to hand over the case evidence and cross-examination opinions to Cao Yongzheng.

According to the defendant Ge Xinggen's confession, he obtained the property by means of a combination of fraud and theft, and according to Hu Haidan's statement, Ge Xinggen robbed his property.

Other evidence (e.g., the surveillance video of the bank where Ge Xinggen withdrew money) cannot directly prove the nature of the crime, but can only indirectly prove the occurrence of the crime against property.

Therefore, accurately determining the facts of the crime is the most critical premise for the characterization of this case......" Du Yong said this, feeling a little dry and swallowing saliva.

Two shifts today.