The property; stealing others' belongings on the shelves and under the bed in the trains and subways belongs to plagiarism. Some scholars believe that people who are not directly in contact with the victim’s body are not prepared for the victim’s death. Plagiarism is also taken away from property that is close to the victim and has close relationship with the victim. For example, the offender takes away the belongings in the basket before the victim's bike. Although some scholars advocate that plagiarism refers to theft of property from others, they also believe that plagiarism also includes “theft of other people’s belongings from the back of a bicycle on a bicycleâ€. According to the above example, possessions placed near the body, even if they are not in contact with the human body, can be targeted for plagiarism. However, the connotation and extension of the concept of plagiarism become ambiguous. People from these discussions may be able to get some feelings that are consistent with their conventional impressions, but they will also come up with feelings that are contrary to their usual impressions; more importantly, they cannot see the true connotation and relative clarity of the concept of plagiarism. boundary. According to this interpretation of “carry-onâ€, there are bound to be three difficult problems to solve: First, in practice, it is impossible to provide a clear standard for the scope of plagiarism. How far the property is from the body can be evaluated as ''near the body''. For example, since the baggage stolen on the luggage rack is counted as plagiarism, whether the teacup on the table in front of the passenger that was not in contact with the body is counted as if it is counted as Plagiarism, if it is not counted, then there is no way to keep the same logic; if this kind of behavior is considered plagiarism, then it is probably inconsistent with people’s impressions of plagiarism. For another example, if luggage is placed on the top of a passenger’s luggage In the vicinity of the body, then whether the luggage on the shelf separated from the passenger by a few seats is near the body, whether the luggage placed on the shelf separated from the passenger by one carriage is near the body, if it is placed in the front basket or rear seat of the bicycle The property on it can be the object of plagiarism. Then, whether the property placed in the trunk of the car or the belongings in the trunk of the cargo vehicle can be the object of plagiarism, obviously, the mainstream view cannot be logically answered consistently. The above problem can not provide an operative, clear boundary standard. Second, it is impossible to exclude those activities that cannot constitute plagiarism. Is it possible to become an object of plagiarism as long as the property is in the vicinity of the body, for example, A reads a book on a bench in the park, parks his bicycle next to the bench, and when B passes, he is not prepared to ride the bicycle secretly. Of course, it is theft of physical belongings near the body, but can it be regarded as plagiarism? Further, if B secretly drives away a car parked near A's body and can be assessed as plagiarism, I’m afraid no one will approve of it. "plagiarize" a bicycle or "plagiarism" The conclusion of a car. However, according to the concept of plagiarism advocated by some viewpoints, since the above behaviors all belong to “theft of property near other people's bodiesâ€, they can only be logically considered to be plagiarism. It can thus be seen that this concept cannot provide effective screening functions in the face of boundary cases. Third, it is theoretically impossible to be self-consistent. Since it emerges in the form of a concept, people must ask, as part of the concept of plagiarism, why the object of plagiarism can be “property in the vicinity of the body†and not a property far from the body. Obviously, whether it is near the body or away from the body, property All belong to the victim, which is the basic premise of the crime of theft. To be able to make academic explanations on the so-called "property near the body" in this view, I am afraid that it can only be considered that in this case, compared with the property far from the body, there is a relationship between the property near the body and the victim. A relatively tight relationship of possession. However, why does the criminal law protect the tight relationship between possessions (near the body) or the relative looseness of her possession (away from the body), but must reach a certain amount of property before it is protected? The consequence of this concept is inevitable. It is required that the boundary between the "close possession" of property and the "shelter of her possession" be divided, but in criminal law theory, it is impossible to provide the basis for such division. This division is puzzling. 2. Constructing the conceptual basis for the concept of plagiarism: The personal taboo plagiarism from the perspective of the victim is incriminated as a type of behavior irrespective of the amount of crime. Compared with ordinary theft, there is bound to be an elevated and unique unlawful connotation. This illegal connotation must also be equivalent to home-to-household theft and the carrying of lethal weapons in theft. As mentioned earlier, it is not only possible that the theft occurred in a public place. Not only is it not enough, and it has no real meaning; it is also not possible to extend luggage carrying luggage to the luggage rack. This has nothing to do with the body. The contact with the property, because it is only said that there is a close account of the preceding six weeks light power book, p. 97. Qu Xinjiu: "Criminal Jurisprudence," China University of Political Science and Law Press, 2011, p. 462. For example, Professor Zhou Guangquan believes that the object of plagiarism includes both the property that he carries with him and his possession. See the preceding 6-week light title, page 97. Departments do not provide any legal grounds for plagiarism and punishment. So, what is the illegal content of plagiarism? In my opinion, to answer this question, it is necessary to think from the perspective of the victim. In the past, the dispute over the scope of the plagiarized property did not concern itself with the meaning of the victim. Although people all understand that plagiarism is a kind of theft that is close to the victim’s body, the concern about this kind of “closeness†ultimately falls to the distance between the property and the body. In this type of thinking, the victim of plagiarism seems to be treated as a cold, emotionless object whose only purpose is to measure the distance to the property. When people refer to "property near the body," the body and property seem to be regarded as two coordinates in the spatial coordinate system. However, the property protected by theft is essentially a tool that serves the development of an individual's personality; it can even be said that all objects protected by the law are, in the final analysis, intended for people in this society. All basic thinking should be centered on this topic. Without understanding and understanding the development and significance of human beings in society, it is impossible to truly understand the legal benefits of criminal law protection, and it will inevitably lead to misunderstandings in the fight against crime. It is the thinking centered on 'man' that motivates this article to define plagiarism from the perspective of victim doctrine. Literally, plagiarism has one more word than ordinary theft; in terms of meaning, plagiarism is more common than The only thing that causes theft is that the target of the theft by the perpetrator is the property within the victim's personal range. However, the perpetrator's unauthorized access to the other person's personal range not only conforms to the external characteristics of the “扒â€, but also It violates a “private taboo†in jurisprudence and social concepts. This personal taboo means that one cannot intrude into another person's personal area without permission or legal basis. The emphasis here is on the privacy and dignity of the human body. The individual's personal range is a taboo space, which is also a part of personal rights and personality rights in the legal order, precisely at this point, it shows the difference between plagiarism and other common thefts. In addition to the property hazards shared by all the thefts, there is one more hazard that invades the personal space and contravenes the personal taboo. This amount does not count, can also be convicted. Taboo from the personal point of view to understand pickpocketing, both inspired by the research of other disciplines, is derived from the interpretation of the provisions of the criminal law itself. The normative concept of "close-fitting taboos" proposed in criminal law is not a temporary whimsy, but it can be supported by ideological echoes in the fields of biological sociology and physical sociology. From a biosocial perspective, avoiding and prohibiting physical contact with strangers is a basic criterion for the establishment of biological evolution and social relations. Professor Morris, a British zoologist, points out in the "Naked Trilogy" that "adult associations in adults contain sexual associations. In addition to artificial insemination, sexual intercourse is unlikely to produce intimate foundations, so to some extent, the body Contact has become synonymous with sexual intercourse.Professor Morris's research shows that touch is the foundation of intimacy and the mother of all feelings. No language can overcome intimate physical contact. Physical contact is the most basic form of human communication. People are not only biological but also social. Since physical contact has become a sign of sexual activity, people gradually begin to control their physical contact in everyday life. The results of research on the behavior of infants and lovers show that the degree of intimate contact between two people depends on the degree of trust between the two. The crowdedness of modern life has left everyone surrounded by strangers; it is because of the lack of trust in strangers and at least the total lack of trust in strangers. So they spared no effort to open their distance. In a busy community life, physical contact with strangers must be forbidden. Pedestrians who show off fast scenes in the streets or walk in the building can clearly show that people are always obeying the extremely complicated strategies of avoiding contact with strangers. Professor Morris pointed out keenly that the restrictions on contact with strangers can only be lifted under extremely congested conditions, and only those who are in special industries will be banned (such as barbers, tailors and doctors) because their profession makes them " Right to contact "the customer and the patient's body. There are fewer restrictions on physical contact with close friends and relatives. Their social role determines that they are not sexual partners and therefore are less exposed to physical contact with them. Despite this, there is still a fixed program of physical contact during greetings. The handshake ceremony has a fixed program, and the kissing ceremony also has a fixed program to distinguish it from the mouth-to-mouth kiss of a sexual partner. These outstanding and insightful analyses in biosocial science can support the definition of plagiarism in the ideological resources. The property that is placed in the personal area is different from other property in that it is in a space that prohibits others from intruding. This space is used as an organism and social body to protect one's own body and avoid others. The lowest limit of contact and the last line of defense. The perpetrators intruded into this private space to carry out theft without their permission, just in violation of the "closed taboo" as the bottom line of interpersonal communication. Claus Crocker, "The General Theory of German Criminal Law", translated by Wang Shizhou, Law Press 2005 , pp. 105-106 D. Stratravett, Coulomb: "General Principles of Criminal Law - Crime Theory", Law Press 2004, p. 38. 1 See English Chris. Schilling, The Body in Culture, Technology, and Society, translated by Li Kang, Peking University Press, 2011, p. 1. Foreword, p. 14, p. 30-42. 10 Wang Minan and Chen Yongguo: “Post-body: Culture, Power, and Life Politicsâ€, Jilin People's Publishing House, 2011, p. 1. 2* See Lin Laiwu; “Human dignity and dignity of the human being, together with the explanation of the 38th interpretation of the Chinese Constitutionâ€, in “Zhejiang Social Scienceâ€, No. 3, 2008. * The right to privacy was stipulated in Article 2 of the Tort Liability Act that took effect in 2010. This is the first time in China that important privacy laws have been established in important civil laws. But before the theory of civil law had already studied the right to privacy. Correspondingly, the concept of private space has also been proposed, but mainly refers to the private range of the individual. See Yang Lixin: "In-depth research on the relationship between privacy rights and legal protection and the body can hardly provide more inspiration and reference for criminal law issues. Therefore, there is a need for the criminal law to extract its own concepts in the face of real problems. When the perpetrators intruded into the personal range of others, it was only a few hundred dollars or a few dollars. It was only a fortuitous result. Whether or not the state’s penalty was initiated did not depend on this occasional result. This amount, whether large or small, is not detrimental to the image of plagiarism. It is theft of other people’s property in a manner that violates personal taboos. According to the information found by the author, at present, the Chinese academic community is closer to the point of view in the point that the object of plagiarism is 'the personal property', mainly the explanations of Professor Qu Xinjiu and Professor Li Hong. However, Professor Qu Xinjiu On the one hand, acknowledging that 'plagiarism means stealing property from others' (see "Criminal Science", China University of Political Science and Technology Press, 2011, p. 462), and on the other hand that plagiarism also includes "after riding a bike Seizing other people’s belongings on the seats “This makes his opinion inconsistent. Professor Li Hong also believes that ''plagiarism refers to theft of property from others'' (see "Criminal Science", Law Press 2012, p. 744). However, on the one hand, he did not give reasons for this definition. On the one hand, only such a definition cannot answer the question of how to determine the behavior of those who have been allowed to steal and then steal property. Da Ren's "Introduction to Criminal Law", translated by Feng Jun, Renmin University of China Press, 2003, pp. 106-107; Hong Fukan, "The Foundation of Criminal Law Theory", Taipei Criminal Law Press, 1977, pp. 22-24. In the author's view, the use of recidivist offenders as an element of unlawful compo- sition may require proper understanding in a criminal theory system based on the basic structure of “criminal behavior-crime risky personalityâ€. For the prototype of a new system, see Zhang Wen, Liu Yanhong, Gan Yiqun, Introduction to Personality Criminal Law, Law Press 2005, p. 228. Foreword, p. 108. 7 Foreword, No. 557 Feng Jun, “Regulatory Understanding of Criminal Law Issuesâ€, Peking University Press, 2009, p. 2. 126 8 Professor Feng Jun pointed out that there are three meanings of responsibility. First, it refers to the responsibility as a basis for punishment; second, it refers to the responsibility for the establishment of a crime; and third, it refers to the responsibility as a standard for the amount of punishment. See previous quotation, p. 184. Xu Yuxiu: Contemporary Trends in Criminal Law, China Democracy and Legal Publishing House, 2005, p. 89. In accordance with the basic requirements of the behavioral criminal law, the criminal law responsibility is the responsibility of a single act, not the actor's personality responsibility or indirect lifestyle responsibility. This kind of personality or indirect lifestyle factors, although not positioned in the responsibility, will be considered at the sentencing stage. According to article 46, paragraph 2 of the German Criminal Code, the court must take into account the perpetrator’s motives, goals, the feelings of the actions and the will of the acts, as well as the previous life experiences, basic personality and economic status of the perpetrators during sentencing. And so on. This is considered to be the influence of the actor's character and lifestyle on the sentencing. Sch/Sch/Stree, § cit., p.113 128 Yi Qilin: "Criminal Law," China University of Political Science and Law Press, 2011, p. 538. Foam Roller Cover,Phenolic Core Foam Roller Cover,Plastic Core Foam Roller Cover,Phenolic Core Blue Foam Roller Cover PRO-CHARGER CO., LTD. (VICTOR HERO HOLDINGS LTD, TIME VALUE LTD.) , https://www.pro-chargerco.com