论盗骗交织犯罪的区分

根据欺骗是为窃取创造条件还是诱导交付,何者对财产转移起决定性作用,可以对盗骗交织犯罪作第一层过滤。再根据被害人控制意识与控制可能性的有无,又可将交付型盗骗交织犯罪分为纯正交付型和不纯正交付型。在纯正交付型盗骗交织犯罪中,起决定作用的是欺诈隐瞒行为,被害人理应辨明真伪但陷于圈套,交付归根结底是缘于欺诈而作出,未脱离骗取的本质,采用"处分意识不要说"以诈骗罪论具有合理性。个别情况下还需考察被害人对于事实之真伪是否具有实质性审核判断义务,若有实质性审核判断义务但因没有认识或者预见到而交付当属受骗,不构成被利用的工具;不具备此义务而作出的交付则属于被利用的工具。"偷换二维码案"中的处分人只是依照交易习惯或者惯例而行动,没有实质性审核义务,事实上与机器无异,因而属于被利用的无意识的工具。"收购水稻案"与"收购废铝案"的被害人本身有处分全部财产的意思,行为人通过做手脚的方式使其对财物的数量和价值发生错误认识从而少支付价款,属于欺骗他人免除债务型诈骗。盗骗交织犯罪只有一个行为对财物转移占有起决定性作用,当属一罪,按照想象竞合处理会不当加重行为人的责任。

On the Recognition of the Theft and Fraud Intertwined Crime

According to whether the fraud is create conditions for stealing or deceive the victim to dispose the property,the fraud and theft can be distinguished in the first phrase.Refer to the control consciousness and control possibility,the delivery-type difficult cases of fraud and theft intertwined can be divided into typical delivery crime and nontypical delivery crime,in the typical delivery crime,the fraud or concealment is crucial for the crime be accomplished,the victim is obliged to identify the tricks but he is failed to,the unlawful behaviour shall be charged of fraudulent crime.A critical factor supposed to be take into consideration is that whether the victim is obliged to distinguish and identify the information is true or not,if he is,the unlawful behaviour should be charged of fraudulent,if not,he is play the part of an instrument of theft.The victims in the crime of displacing QR-code and falsely claim the express package are not responsible for the authenticity of the fabricated information,therefore,they have no difference from the automatic machines which can be regards as the unconscious crime instrument.The victim of purchasing grain case intended to dispose the grain totally,the perpetrator play a tricks to mislead the victim misunderstand on the quantity and values of the goods,to obtain illegal benefits though less payment,it is equivalent to deceive someone to exempt the debt,and it should be charged of fraudulent crime.