>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
People's Procuratorate of Huangpu District, Shanghai Municipality v. Meng Dong and He Likang (Case on Network Larceny)
上海市黄浦区人民检察院诉孟动、何立康网络盗窃案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: Criminal-->Property Infringement
  • Legal document: Judgment
  • Judgment date: 06-26-2006
  • Procedural status: Trial at First Instance
  • Source: SPC Gazette,Issue 11,2006

People’s Procuratorate of Huangpu District, Shanghai Municipality v. Meng Dong and He Likang (Case on Network Larceny)
(Case on Network Larceny)
上海市黄浦区人民检察院诉孟动、何立康网络盗窃案

People's Procuratorate of Huangpu District, Shanghai Municipality v. Meng Dong and He Likang
(Case on Network Larceny)

 

上海市黄浦区人民检察院诉孟动、何立康网络盗窃案

 【裁判摘要】
 一、依照法定程序收集的电子文件如果与案件关联,并在与其他证据印证后能够客观地反映案件真实情况,依法可成为刑事诉讼中的证据。
 二、行为人通过网络实施的虚拟行为如果对现实生活中刑法所保护的客体造成危害构成犯罪的,应当受刑罚惩罚。
 三、秘密窃取网络环境中的虚拟财产构成盗窃罪的,应当按该虚拟财产在现实生活中对应的实际财产遭受损失的数额确定盗窃数额。虚拟财产在现实生活中对应的财产数额,可以通过该虚拟财产在现实生活中的实际交易价格来确定。
 四、盗窃罪的犯罪对象是种类繁多的公私财物,盗窃公私财物的种类不同,认定盗窃既遂、未遂的方法就会不同。审判实践中,不存在唯一的具体案件盗窃未遂认定标准,应当根据刑法二十三条规定的“着手实行犯罪”、“犯罪未得逞”、“犯罪未得逞是由于犯罪分子意志以外的原因”等三个条件,结合盗窃财物种类等具体情况,认定盗窃犯罪行为是否未遂。行为人在网络中盗窃他人的虚拟财产,只要盗窃行为已实现了非法占有该虚拟财产在现实生活中所对应的被害人财产,理当认定犯罪既遂。至于行为人是否对赃物作出最终处理,以及被害人事后是否追回该虚拟财产,均与行为人已完成的犯罪形态无关。
BASIC FACTS 
Prosecuting organ: People's Procuratorate of Huangpu District, Shanghai Municipality. 公诉机关:上海市黄浦区人民检察院。
Defendant: Meng Dong, male, 24, native of Jiexiu, Shanxi Province. He was arrested on September 23, 2005, and was former computer maintainer of Guangzhou Modern Hardware Product Co., Ltd. 被告人:孟动,男,24岁,山西省介休市人,2005年9月23日被逮捕,捕前系广东省广州市现代五金制品有限公司电脑维护员。
Defendant: He Likang, male, 22, native of Jiexiu, Shanxi Province. He was arrested on September 23, 2005, and was former manager of Taiyuan No. 4 Space Network Center. 被告人:何立康,男,22岁,山西省介休市人,2005年9月23日被逮捕,捕前系山西省太原市第四空间网络中心管理员。
The People's Procuratorate of Huangpu District, Shanghai Municipality (hereinafter referred to as Huangpu Procuratorate) lodged a prosecution with the People's Court of Huangpu District, Shanghai Municipality (hereinafter referred to as Huangpu Court) against Meng Dong (called Meng hereafter) and He Likang (called He hereafter) for the crime of larceny. 上海市黄浦区人民检察院以被告人孟动、何立康犯盗窃罪,向上海市黄浦区人民法院提起公诉。
The bill of indictment describes: Meng stole the username and password of Shanghai Maoli Industrial Co., Ltd. (the aggrieved entity, hereinafter referred to as Maoli Company), and provided them to He. They two plotted that Meng should collect money from buyers through the online bank, and He should break in Maoli Company's online recharge system to steal Tencent QQ virtual coins (hereinafter referred to as Q coins), and then recharge Q coins for the QQ numbers of the buyers who had been notified by Meng. From 18:32 on July 22, 2005 to 10:52 AM on the next day, He stole 32,298 Q coins from Maoli Company's account with a total value of 24,869.46 Yuan, and stole 134 game cards with the par value at 50 points per card and 60 game cards with the par value at 100 points per card, totaling 1,079.5 Yuan. Meng and He jointly stole a total amount of 25,948.96 Yuan of properties from others in secret through the network system for the purpose of illegal possession, with the amount being huge. Their acts violated Article 264 of the “the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China” (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Law) and constituted the crime of larceny. Huangpu Procuratorate pleaded with the court to investigate the two defendants's criminal liabilities according to law. After the case occurred, the two defendants' families returned all the illicit money. He voluntarily surrendered and performed meritorious services, and may be given a lighter penalty according to law. 起诉书指控:被告人孟动窃取被害单位上海茂立实业有限公司(以下简称茂立公司)的账号和密码后,提供给被告人何立康,二人密谋由孟动通过网上银行向买家收款,何立康入侵茂立公司的在线充值系统窃取Q币,然后为孟动通知的买家QQ号进行Q币充值。从2005年7月22日18时32分至次日10时52分,何立康从茂立公司的账户内共窃取价值人民币 24 869.46元的Q币32 298只,窃取价值人民币1079.5元的游戏点卡50点134张、100点60张。孟动、何立康以非法占有为目的,通过网络系统共同秘密窃取他人总计价值人民币25 948.96元的财物,盗窃数额巨大,其行为已触犯《中华人民共和国刑法》(以下简称刑法)第二百六十四条规定,构成盗窃罪,请依法追究二被告人的刑事责任。案发后,二被告人的家属已帮助退赔了全部赃款,何立康有自首和立功情节,依法可从轻处罚。
The prosecutor read out Maoli Company's case report records in court, the inspection opinions issued by the public security organ on Meng's use of two computer hard disks, and the QQ chat records educed from the hard disks. The prosecutor also showed the evidence such as the business licenses of Maoli Company and relevant business entities, the contracts, the payment vouchers, the invoices, the photos of the two distrained computer hard disks which Meng used, and the bank card with which Meng collected the illicit money. 公诉人当庭宣读了被害单位的报案记录、公安机关对孟动使用的两块电脑硬盘进行检查后出具的检查意见书以及从该硬盘中导出的QQ聊天记录,出示了被害单位与相关业务单位的企业法人营业执照、合同、支付凭证和发票,以及扣押孟动使用的两块电脑硬盘的照片和孟动用于收取赃款的银行卡等证据。
Meng and He had no objection to the facts in prosecution. The defender of the two defendants held that secret stealing as described in the bill of indictment was a virtual act in network environment. As everyone knows, many network games which net users take part in are full of virtual homicide and violence. If the virtual secret stealing in the network environment shall be combated, then shall those who commit virtual homicide or violence also be subject to criminal liabilities for the crime of intentional homicide or intentional injury? The answer is no. Because virtual acts are not the criminal acts to be punished under the Criminal Law, nor will virtual acts cause harmful consequences in our real lives. Both Q coins and game cards are virtual properties in network games, not the state-owned properties or the collective properties owned by the working people, nor are they private properties of citizens, which are under protection of the Criminal Law. Therefore, whether the two defendants' act of secretly stealing the virtual properties was a criminal act to be combated under the Criminal Law is a discussible theoretical issue. Furthermore, Article 46 of the “Criminal Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China” (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Litigation Law) prescribes: “In the decision of all cases, stress shall be laid on evidence, investigation and study; credence shall not be readily given to oral statements. A defendant cannot be convicted and sentenced to a criminal penalty if there is only his statement but no other evidence; the defendant may be convicted and sentenced to a criminal penalty if the evidence is sufficient and reliable, even without his statement.” Although there are both the defendants' confessions and other evidence in the present case, other evidence is mostly electronic documents. Different from traditional literal documents, electronic documents are easy to be reproduced, altered or deleted, do not have the uniqueness and objectivity of evidence, and cannot fully reflect objective facts, thus they shall not be used as effective evidence. If these electronic documents were removed, the evidence in the present case was not sufficient and confirmative. In addition, although electronic documents could show from which computer terminal they came, the computer terminal was not exactly the one which the user used. Therefore, these electronic documents cannot prove that they were formed by the two defendants, cannot deny that they might be formed from other users' occasional use of the terminal, and thus no exclusive conclusion may be drawn. Thirdly, without being authenticated by an authoritative institution, the value of Q coins and game cards in real life was uncertain. There was no basis to affirm that the two defendants caused huge losses to Maoli Company. Even if the acts of the two defendants constituted a crime, some Q coins were recovered as they were found by Maoli Company and the network service provider in time, thus the crime involving these Q coins was in an attempting state. After the case occurred, the families of the two defendants helped return the illicit money, thus the harmfulness of the acts of the two defendants was light. He voluntarily surrendered and performed meritorious services. The defender suggested that the two defendants be given mitigated penalties and probation be applied. 被告人孟动、何立康对起诉指控的事实不持异议。二被告人的辩护人认为,起诉书指控的秘密窃取,是发生在网络环境中的虚拟行为。众所周知,在很多网民参与的网络游戏中,充斥着大量的、虚拟的凶杀、暴力情节。如果网络环境中虚拟实施的秘密窃取行为应当被打击,那么虚拟实施的凶杀、暴力行为是否也应该被当作故意杀人、故意伤害犯罪去追究刑事责任?答案是否定的。因为虚拟行为不是刑法要追究的刑事犯罪行为,虚拟行为不会在现实生活中造成危害结果。Q币和游戏点卡都是网络游戏中的虚拟财产,并非刑法要保护的国有财产、劳动群众集体所有的财产以及公民私人所有的财产,因此二被告人秘密窃取虚拟财产的行为是否属于刑法要打击的犯罪行为,有待在理论上探讨。其次,《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法来自北大法宝》(以下简称刑事诉讼法)第四十六条规定:“对一切案件的判处都要重证据,重调查研究,不轻信口供。只有被告人供述,没有其他证据的,不能认定被告人有罪和处以刑罚;没有被告人供述,证据充分确实的,可以认定被告人有罪和处以刑罚。”本案虽然既有被告人供述也有其他证据,但其他证据多系电子文件。电子文件与传统意义上的文字原件不同,电子文件有易被复制、修改和删除的特性,不具有证据所需的唯一性、客观性,不能充分反映客观事实,不应该作为有效证据使用。如果将这些电子文件扣除,本案的证据并不充分确实。另外,电子文件虽然能反映出其来自哪一台电脑终端机,但是电脑终端机与使用该终端机的用户不能直接划等号,因此这些电子文件无法证明是在二被告人的操作下形成的,无法排除其他用户偶然使用该终端机形成这些电子文件的情形,不可能形成排他性结论。再有,未经权威机构鉴定,Q币和游戏点卡在现实生活中的价值为多少,是不确定的。认定二被告人的行为给被害单位造成的损失巨大,没有根据。即使二被告人的行为构成犯罪,由于被害单位和网络服务商发现及时,已经追回了一部分Q币,因此这部分犯罪处于未遂状态。案发后,二被告人的家属帮助退赔了赃款,故二被告人的社会危害性较轻,被告人何立康还有自首、立功情节。因此,建议对二被告人减轻处罚并适用缓刑。
...... 上海市黄浦区人民法院经审理查明:
 被害单位茂立公司通过与腾讯科技 (北京)有限公司(以下简称腾讯公司)、广州网易计算机系统有限公司(以下简称网易公司)签订合同,成为腾讯在线Q币以及网易一卡通在上海地区网上销售的代理商。
 2005年6-7月间,被告人孟动通过互联网,在广州市利用黑客程序窃得茂立公司登录腾讯、网易在线充值系统使用的账号和密码。同年7月22日下午,孟动通过网上聊天方式与被告人何立康取得联系,向何立康提供了上述所窃账号和密码,二人预谋入侵茂立公司的在线充值系统,窃取Q币和游戏点卡后在网上低价抛售。
 2005年7月22日18时许,被告人孟动先让被告人何立康为自己的QQ号试充 1只Q币。确认试充成功后,孟动即在找到买家并谈妥价格后,通知何立康为买家的 QQ号充入Q币,要求买家向其中国工商银行牡丹灵通卡 (卡号 9558823602001916770,以下简称770号牡丹卡)内划款。自2005年7月22日18时 32分至次日10时52分,何立康陆续从茂立公司的账户内窃取价值人民币 24 869.46元的Q币32 298只,除按照孟动的指令为买家充入Q币外,还先后为自己及朋友的QQ号充入数量不等的Q币。自2005年7月23日0时25分至4时07分,何立康还陆续从茂立公司的账户内窃取价值人民币1079.5元的游戏点卡50点 134张、100点60张。以上二被告人盗窃的Q币、游戏点卡,共计价值人民币 25 948.96元。
 被害单位茂立公司发现被盗后,立即通过腾讯公司在网上追回被盗的Q币 15 019个。茂立公司实际损失Q币17 279个,价值人民币13 304.83元。连同被盗的游戏点卡,茂立公司合计损失价值人民币 14 384.33元。
 被告人孟动、何立康到案后,家属分别帮助交付人民币8000元和2.6万元以抵顶赃款。侦查机关将其中的14 384.33元发还给茂立公司,多余款项退还交款人。
 上述事实,有下列经庭审质证的证据证实:
 1.《腾讯在线Q币一级代理商销售合同》,证明茂立公司于2005年7月1日通过与腾讯公司签订合同,成为腾讯在线Q币上海地区的代理销售商。
 2.转账汇款凭证,证明茂立公司于 2005年6月27日、7月29日,通过招商银行分别向腾讯公司汇款人民币30万元、 11.76万元,用于购买Q币。
 3.发票,证明腾讯公司于2005年8月 5日以信息费名义收取了茂立公司汇入的 41.76万元。
 4.电脑下载网页截图,证明腾讯公司于2005年7月1日通过互联网,向茂立公司的mlsofi账户内划入Q币389 610个 (计价人民币299 999.69元)。
 5.《网易在线直充系统代理合作协议》,证明茂立公司于2004年7月1日与网易公司通过签订协议,成为网易一卡通在线直充系统上海地区的销售总代理,按在线直充卡面值的8.2折进货。
 6.电汇凭单,证明茂立公司于2005年 7月20日通过中国民生银行,向网易公司汇款人民币4.25万元,用于购买游戏点卡。
 ......

Dear visitor, you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases. If you are not a subscriber, you can pay for a document through Online Pay and read it immediately after payment.
An entity user can apply for a trial account or contact us for your purchase.
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: info@chinalawinfo.com

 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容;
单位用户可申请试用或者来电咨询购买。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese