On the evening of March 8, 2017, Fan climbed through the window and entered the victim Ding's home to steal. When he heard footsteps at the door, he was afraid that the matter would be exposed and he would be caught, so he quickly dropped everything in his hands.

□Zhou Zengwei Chen Deyan

[Case Facts] On the evening of March 8, 2017, Fan climbed through the window and entered the victim Ding's home to steal. When he heard the footsteps at the door, he was afraid that the matter would be exposed and he would be caught, so he quickly dropped his things and fled the scene. Seeing this unexpected situation, Ding immediately followed Fan, chasing after him while calling 110. Fan ran wildly and fled to the corner of the village. Seeing that there was no one else around him, in order to resist arrest, he picked up a brick and threw it at Ding. Afterwards, Fan continued to run forward, while Ding endured the pain and chased, shouting "catch the thief". After a while, the police who arrived arrested Fan. After identification, Ding suffered minor injuries.

[Commentary] During the trial of this case, Fan was charged with burglary. During the escape process, in order to resist arrest, he committed violence and caused minor injuries. His behavior constituted converted robbery. There is no dispute. What is controversial is whether his behavior was "house robbery"?

The first opinion is that it is "house robbery" because the perpetrator used violence or threatened violence on the spot during the process from breaking into the house to escaping, and the crime of theft was converted into the crime of robbery without interruption. Even if the place where the violence was committed was not indoors, it should be regarded as being indoors, and it would be deemed as "house robbery" and be punished severely in accordance with the law. The second opinion is that it does not constitute "house robbery". The reason is that since the place where violence is committed is not indoors, "on the spot" should not be arbitrarily expanded, and it does not constitute "house robbery" according to law. The third opinion is that it does not constitute "house robbery". The perpetrator committed the theft, but the amount did not reach a "large amount", and the violence committed to resist arrest was relatively minor and did not cause much harm, so he may not be punished as a crime.

The author agrees with the second opinion. It does not constitute "house robbery" and should be regarded as a general transformed robbery crime. The reason is:

In this case, Fan climbed through the window and entered Ding's house to steal, which is illegal for the purpose of "house entry". However, even if it is converted into robbery, the illegality of the purpose of "house-breaking theft" cannot also be equated with the location of "house-breaking robbery". The conversion of "house-breaking theft" into "house-breaking robbery" must be "indoors", including the enclosed courtyard of the victim's home.

During the robbery, Fan heard the sound of footsteps. He was afraid that the theft would be revealed and he would be caught. He immediately threw down his things and fled the scene of the theft. That is, before leaving the "household" of Ding's house, he did not commit violence or violent coercion against the victim. Instead, at the corner of the village, in order to resist arrest, he picked up a block and threw it at Ding, committing violence. It was at this time and place that the nature of the perpetrator's crime immediately changed and turned into robbery. In other words, the place where Fan committed the robbery did not occur in the "household" of the Ding family. Therefore, the robbery in this case does not have the location characteristics of "house robbery" and is not "house robbery". Taking a step back, if convicted and sentenced for "house-breaking robbery", according to Article 263 of the " Criminal Law ": "Anyone who commits any of the following circumstances shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of more than ten years, life imprisonment or death, and shall also be fined or have property confiscated: (1) House-breaking robbery..." Sentencing Fan to a penalty of more than ten years obviously violates the criminal policy of balancing leniency with severity and infringes on Fan's legitimate interests.

The perpetrator committed the theft, although the amount did not reach a "large amount", but because it was a burglary, according to Article 264 of the "Criminal Law", burglary constitutes a crime and "shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention or control, and shall also or solely be fined." In addition, according to the opinion, if the perpetrator uses violence or threatens violence on the spot to hide stolen goods, resist arrest, or destroy criminal evidence after committing a burglary, he will be convicted and punished for robbery, not to mention causing minor injuries. Therefore, the third opinion "not to be punished as a crime" is obviously untenable.

Finally, the crime of robbery infringes upon complex objects, infringing both property rights and personal rights. As long as it has one of the consequences of taking property or causing minor injuries to others, it is considered a completed robbery. On the other hand, if no property is stolen and no personal injury is caused to others, it is an attempted robbery.

In this case, Fan escaped from the scene after being caught committing a burglary. In order to resist arrest, he used violence on the spot, causing minor injuries. His behavior constituted the crime of robbery; failure to succeed due to reasons other than his will was an attempted crime. Based on the fact that the perpetrator truthfully confessed the crime after arriving at the case and had a good confession attitude during the trial, the author believes that it is appropriate to sentence him to a fixed-term imprisonment of less than three years and a fine for robbery.