许霆案的法律真相——利用计算机实施的合同诈骗罪

THE LEGAL TRUTH OF XU TING CASE The Crime of Contract Fraud Which Uses Computer

重提许霆案似乎有些不合时宜,可是,盗窃罪定性并非本案的法律真相,以致于在许霆被假释出狱之后,对这一定性的质疑还在继续。同时,盗窃罪定性亦不能担当本案作为标本的重任。本案中的ATM并不存在故障,以此为前提将本案定性为盗窃缺乏说服力,即便动用刑法第63条第2款对许霆轻判也难以服众,因为盗窃方式的改变并不改变盗窃罪侵犯财产权利的社会危害性,该条款的动用师出无名。事实上,许霆的行为属于利用计算机实施的合同诈骗罪,根据我国刑法第287条的规定,应当以第224条规定的合同诈骗罪定罪处罚,以此定性为基础,量刑与本案最后的量刑基本一致。所以,只要改变本案的定性,不改变其量刑,便可还许霆一个公道,使本案的标本价值得以彰显。

The matter is now in the past,it seems that bring up Xu Ting case is out of place.However,larceny determination is not the legal truth of this case,as a result,queries to this determination still continue after Xu Ting was paroled from the prison.Therefore,it＇s necessary to point out the legal truth of this case.The ATM in this case hadn＇t broken down,thus basing the larceny determination on this premise is not convincing,it is difficult to convince people even though use the second Clause of Article 63 to sentence Xu Ting lightly,because changeable larceny methods don＇t change larceny＇s social harmfulness encroach on property right,there hasn＇t a proper reason to use the Clause of this Article.In fact,Xu Ting＇s act belongs to the crime of contract fraud which uses computer,according to Article 287 in our Criminal Law,his act should be punished with the crime of contract fraud stipulated in Article 224.Based on this determination,the sentencing is consistent with the last sentencing of larceny determination on the whole.Therefore,it can return Xu Ting a justice which only to change the determination and not to change the sentencing of this case,at the same time,the example value of this case will be conspicuous.