| The doctrine of unnecessity of disposition consciousness can’t properly distinguish steal from fraud, and is inconsistent with the proposition that the right holder’s consent shall exclude steal. Disposition is a proper means to realize the value of property and thus worthy of legal protection. Since property right is a self-determination right, the exercise of it must reflect the true intention of the right holder. The doctrine of necessity of disposition consciousness can support the comprehensive expression of differences between steal and fraud in the type and degree of their unlawfulness. Therefore, the right holder’s disposition consciousness is a fundamental premise of the constitution of fraud. In the crime of fraud, the right holder’s error only refers to the error about motive, in which the defective cognition of disposed property’s ontological attributes is not included. With the respect to the degree of disposition consciousness, the standpoint of a strict disposition consciousness should be firmly adhered to. The right holder must clearly understand that his disposition behavior would lead to the transfer of his possession of or domination over a specific amount of property, but needs not be aware of the value of the disposed property. The misunderstanding of the property’s weight is just an error about motive, which is irrelevant to the disposition consciousness. In some special types of transactions, the right holder packages several single items into a collection when delivering, without caring about the specific number of individual properties. Only in such situations can the general disposition consciousness as the whole be exceptionally admitted. Only when the victim has an accurate knowledge about the amount, can a conscious disposition of the creditor’s right for deposits be affirmed. |
京公网安备11010102006664号 京ICP备2023015853号