Abstract：In the cases of secretly changing the merchant’s QR code to get money, it is necessary to distinguish the victim in civil law from the victim in criminal law. The merchant is not only a victim of property loss, that is, a victim in civil law, but also a victim in criminal law. The customer neither has cognitive deviation in the normative sense, nor disposes the property based on the disposal intention. The customer is neither the cheated nor the victim.The proposition that the actor in QR code cases establishes the crime of fraud, obviously tries to expand the scope of the act of disposition in fraud. And the most important reason for the actor not to be convicted of fraud is that both the customer and the merchant lack the corresponding act of disposition. The nature of this kind of behavior to get money is not an interactive crime of mutual communication. Whether the case is understood as fraud between the two or tripartite fraud, it is difficult to confirm that implementation behavior based on disposal intention exists.Whether from the perspective of the substantiality of crime or from the perspective of the purpose of punishment, the behavior of secretly changing the merchant’s QR code to get money should be treated as a property crime rather than being recognized as not guilty. Treating the behavior that infringes the legal interests and has the necessity to be prevented as a property crime does not violate the principle of caution of penalty in criminal law, but it is more conducive to exert the function of criminal law.QR code cases are the theft against the original intention of the victim, and the object of the behavior is the property interest of the merchant’s creditor’s rights. By stealing or secretly changing the QR code, the actor only obtains the status of the creditor, and creates conditions to obtain other people’s property interests or creditor’s rights. At this time, the actor has not yet obtained the actual property interests, and there is only an abstract danger to the creditor’s rights of the merchant. By now the actor just conducts the preparation behavior. Only when the customer scans the code, the danger of infringement of creditor’s rights is specific, realistic and urgent enough, and should be substantially recognized as the implementation behavior of theft. When the actor’s account receives money, his theft is completed. At this moment, the actor not only obtains but also realizes the creditor’s rights. In the final analysis, QR code cases are the crimes of completely against the victim’s original intention rather than “self-damage” crimes. Therefore, it is necessary to recognize the “conceptualization of the property interest possession judgment” to appropriately expand the establishment scope of the crime of theft and bring such cases into the legal network of theft.Generally speaking, the theory of theft is result oriented and the theory of fraud is behavior oriented. However, it does not violate the basic logic of criminal law that criminal law must take behavior as the core to analyze the problems. Similarly, it does not “unconsciously put the focus of attention on loss compensation”. On the contrary, it just emphasizes the substantive judgment of legal interest infringement rather than formal understanding. Moreover, in judicial practice, the theory of theft also helps to tighten the criminal law network and avoid the punishment loopholes caused by the theory of fraud, which also contributes to implementing the idea of strict but not severe.
付立庆. 二维码案件中诈骗罪说的质疑与盗窃罪说的论证[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2022, 52(1): 51-66.
Fu Liqing. A Challenge to the Theory of Fraud in QR Code Cases and Demonstration on the Theory of Theft. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2022, 52(1): 51-66.
2022, Vol. 52 
