***Same crime, transformed robbery, and harboring

Xing Gang (20 years old) and Liu Jun (15 years old) planned and waited for an opportunity to steal in the afternoon. When he saw the victim Li Hongyan buying chicken at the stall, Liu Jun signaled to Xing Gang to cover him. Zhang and ID card, etc.), and then left quickly. When Li Hongyan discovered that he had been stolen and wanted to chase him, Xing Gang in front of him deliberately blocked his view and way out. Li Hongyan grabbed Xing Gang who was standing in front of him. In order to escape, Xing Gang took out a sharp knife and stabbed Li Hongyan several times, stabbing Li Hongyan. After the incident, Xing Gang fled to his friend Zhang Fei's house to hide. After Zhang Fei learned about Xing Gang's crime, he sent Xing Gang to hide in another place. While Xing Gang was hiding, Zhang Fei visited him three times and supported him with 500 yuan in living expenses.

Based on the above case, please answer the following questions:

(1) Do Xing Gang and Liu Jun commit the same crime? Why?

(2) Do Zhang Fei and Xing Gang commit the same crime? Why?

(3) What crimes did Xing Gang and Zhang Fei commit?

(4) How to characterize or deal with the behaviors of Xing Gang and Liu Jun?

[Answer]

(1) Xing Gang and Liu Jun did not commit the same crime. Because Xing Gang and Liu Jun only planned the theft, they only had common intention within the scope of the theft, but there was no common intention in stabbing Li. Liu Jun is only 15 years old and is not criminally responsible for theft according to law. Therefore, Liu Jun and Xing Gang cannot commit the same crime.

(2) Zhang Fei and Xing Gang do not commit the same crime. Because the two had no prior collusion, Zhang Fei did not know in advance and did not participate in Xing Gang's criminal behavior.

(3) When Xing Gang was stealing other people's property, in order to escape and resist arrest, he stabbed Li Hongyan on the spot, which should be converted into robbery according to law. Zhang Fei is guilty of harboring.

(4) Xing Gang should be held criminally responsible for robbery, while Liu Jun should be given administrative penalties for violating public security management, and his parents or guardians should be ordered to strictly discipline him. If necessary, he should also be punished. They can be taken into custody by the government.

[Question-solving ideas]

This question mainly involves the issue of homosexual crimes and the scope of criminal responsibility of minors. Although people over the age of 14 should be held criminally responsible for robbery, the premeditation of Liu Jun and Xing Gang's accomplices, or the intentional scope of the accomplices' crimes, is limited to theft. Xing Gang is the only person responsible for the consequences of intentionally injuring the victim. In criminal law theory, it is called exceeding the limit, that is, if it exceeds the limit of intentional criminal intent, the person who committed the act shall be held responsible. This is the key to the answer and the place to start.

[Detailed explanation of legal principles]

This question involves issues such as the same crime of rape, the criminal responsibility of minors, the transformation of robbery and the relationship between related crimes. Xing Gang and Liu Jun only planned the theft, and Liu Jun left immediately after stealing the property. It was Xing Gang who stabbed Li Hongyan, but this had nothing to do with Liu Jun. Therefore, Xing Gang and Liu Jun only had the same intention within the scope of theft, but did not have the same intention in stabbing Li. That is, only Xing Gang was responsible for the act and result of stabbing the victim Li Hongyan. Bear criminal responsibility, but Liu Jun does not bear criminal responsibility. However, in the case of theft, since Liu Jun is only 15 years old, according to the provisions of Article 17, paragraph 2, of the "Criminal Law", he is not criminally responsible for the theft according to law. It can be seen that the condition of two or more criminal subjects in the same crime is not established, so it is impossible for Liu Jun and Xing Gang to constitute the same crime. After Xing Gang committed the crime of theft, in order to escape and resist arrest, he used violence and caused injury to the victim on the spot. According to the provisions of Article 269 of the Criminal Law, the nature of his theft was transformed, that is, it was transformed into the nature of robbery. , constituting the crime of robbery. Although Zhang Fei had no prior collusion with Xing Gang and did not constitute a criminal relationship, he took the initiative to provide him with a hiding place and property after knowing the criminal behavior committed by Xing Gang, which constituted harboring under Article 310 of the Criminal Law. crime.

As for the characterization and punishment of Xing Gang and Liu Jun's behavior, the provisions of Article 17, paragraph 4, of the Criminal Law should be considered, that is, if a person is not subject to criminal punishment because he is under 16 years old, his parents or guardians shall be ordered to discipline him and, if necessary, Sometimes, the government can also provide custody and education.

Legal Case Analysis

Wang Jun is a 14-year-old sophomore in a middle school. His parents are divorced and he lives with his mother Zhang Hong. His father Wang Wen pays monthly alimony. I often go to my father's place to play, and the relationship between father and son is harmonious. One afternoon on his way home from school, Wang Jun saw a store selling prizes. The coupons were every 10 yuan, and the top prize was a 29-inch TV worth 4,200 yuan. He bought a 10-yuan calculator and received a lottery ticket. The results of the lottery were announced. The ticket held by Wang Jun won the top prize. The mother and son went to the store to claim the prize. After Wang Wen learned that Wang Jun had won the prize, he approached Zhang Hong and said that Wang Jun was underage and incapable of receiving the prize. The prize should belong to the minor's guardian, that is, his parents. So he asked for half of the prize, and the two had a dispute. In anger, Wang Jun sold the TV to the store for 3,600 yuan and deposited the money in the bank. Zhang Hong and Wang Wen became anxious when they heard about it, and immediately took Wang Jun to the store, saying that Wang Jun sold the TV without his parents' consent, and demanded that the TV be returned. The clerk said that the money had already been paid and he refused to return the TV. Question: 1. Is Wang Jun’s act of receiving the prize in this case valid? Does Wang Wen’s statement make sense? Why? 2. Is Zhang Hong’s argument that Wang Wen has no right to share the prize correct? Why? 3. Is Wang Jun’s behavior of selling TV sets effective? Are her parents entitled to a refund? Why?

First of all, the effectiveness of civil acts that restrict behavioral capacity can be divided into four situations:

Persons with restricted behavioral capacity include: 1. Minors over 10 years old; 2. Partial mental Patient

(1) Acts that purely obtain benefits are valid

(2) Acts that are within the scope of the corresponding civil capacity are valid.

(3) Contractual acts performed beyond the capacity for civil conduct are acts whose validity is pending

(4) Unilateral civil acts performed beyond the capacity for civil conduct are invalid acts

1. Is Wang Jun’s act of receiving the prize in this case valid? Does Wang Wen’s statement make sense? Why?

Answer: First of all, Wang Jun is 14 years old and is a person with limited capacity for conduct. His acts of purely profit-making in civil acts are valid. In this case, Wang Jun's act of receiving the prize had no other obligations attached to it and was an act of pure profit-making, so it was valid.

After Wang Wen learned that Wang Jun had won the prize, he approached Zhang Hong and said that Wang Jun was underage and incapable of receiving the prize. The prize should belong to the minor's guardian, that is, his parents. Wang Wen's above statement is wrong. The guardian only manages the property of the ward, and the property of the ward does not belong to the guardian. The guardian shall not deal with the guardian's property except for the benefit of the ward.

2. Is Zhang Hong correct in refuting that Wang Wen has no right to share the prize? Why?

Answer: I only saw "The two had a dispute." I did not see the so-called "Zhang Hong refuted the reason why Wang Wen had no right to share the prize." This title seems to have missed a sentence.

3. Is Wang Jun’s behavior of selling TV sets effective? Are her parents entitled to a refund? Why?

Answer: Wang Jun’s behavior of selling TV sets obviously exceeded his civil capacity. The contractual behavior performed by a person with limited capacity beyond his civil capacity is an act whose validity is yet to be determined. If the guardian ratifies it, it will be valid; if the guardian does not approve it, it will be invalid. Wang Jun’s parents did not approve of it, so Wang Jun’s act of selling TVs was invalid.

Wang Jun’s parents have the right to demand the return of the TV set, because after the sales contract whose validity is pending is not ratified, it is an invalid contract, and the invalid contract is invalid from the beginning.

If a contract is confirmed to be invalid because it does not meet the requirements for validity, it will not be legally binding from beginning to end and will not give rise to the civil rights and obligations expected by the parties. However, it will produce certain legal consequences directly stipulated by the law. According to the provisions of Article 61 of the General Principles of the People's Republic of China and the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China and Articles 58 and 59 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, property shall be returned, compensation at a discount, compensation for fault damages, and restitution. State-owned or returned to the collective or a third party are the methods to deal with the consequences of invalid contracts.

Therefore, Wang Jun’s parents have the right to request the return of the TV set.