[Case Details] One noon, the defendants Zhu and Wei were invited by the victim Zhang to a nearby restaurant to sell him an old mobile phone. Because Zhang thought it was too expensive, no deal was made. The two defendants felt they had been played and immediately began punching and kicking Zhang. In order to calm down the situation, Zhang suggested treating them to a meal. After the meal, Wei took the opportunity to ask Zhang for 1000 yuan. Zhang claimed he didn't have the money, so the two defendants let him call his girlfriend Song to raise the funds, and then took Zhang to a hotel room to guard him while waiting. During this time, Zhu took out a spring knife he was carrying and showed it in front of Zhang, and Wei threatened with phrases like "there will be trouble if you don't give us the money." When Zhu communicated with Song, he found that his mobile phone was out of credit. To facilitate contact with Song, Zhang went downstairs with Wei to top up Zhu's mobile phone card with 30 yuan. Around 22:00, Zhu went downstairs and brought Song to the hotel room. As Song was about to hand over the money to free Zhang, the police who arrived at the scene upon receiving the report arrested Zhu and Wei.
[Disagreements] During the trial of this case, there were four different opinions:
The first opinion held that the two defendants' random beating and extortion should be classified as hooliganism.
The second opinion believed that the behavior of the two defendants matched the characteristics of kidnapping.
The third opinion stated that since the two defendants did not take cash from the victim's person and the victim's personal freedom was not obviously controlled, it should be classified as extortion.
The fourth opinion argued that the two defendants, with the intention of illegal possession, used threats such as holding knives, verbal intimidation, and controlling personal freedom to rob others of their property on the spot, constituting robbery. The 30 yuan that the victim voluntarily topped up for defendant Zhu's mobile phone was not part of the robbery object, thus the two defendants did not actually obtain any property, leading to the classification of attempted crime.
[Analysis] I agree with the fourth opinion. Robbery is defined as the act where the perpetrator uses violence, coercion, or other means with the intent of illegal possession, obtaining others' property on the spot. The key feature of robbery lies in the "two on-the-spot" elements: using violence, coercion, or other methods on the spot, and obtaining property on the spot. In theory, the "two on-the-spot" elements are often used to distinguish robbery from other crimes, but crimes such as kidnapping, extortion, and hooliganism can also objectively exhibit these "two on-the-spot" features. Therefore, starting from this case, I aim to analyze the subtle differences among these four crimes under the "two on-the-spot" scenario.
Firstly, this case should not be classified as hooliganism. Hooliganism can also manifest as forcibly taking or demanding public or private property, sharing some similarities with robbery. In practice, distinctions should be emphasized from the following three aspects: (1) The primary purpose of the former is to show off, seeking spiritual stimulation, while illegally possessing others' property is a secondary goal; the latter's ultimate goal is precisely to possess property, and violent control or threats are merely means. (2) The former infringes on social public order, hence crimes occur more frequently in public places; the latter infringes on citizens' personal rights and public or private property rights, and crimes mostly happen in secluded areas, where discovery by others is undesirable. (3) The former usually employs mild violence or threats, not resorting to severe infringement of personal rights to extort property; the latter's violence or threats are greater, typically involving weapons, making the victim unable to resist.
Secondly, this case should not be classified as kidnapping. Both kidnapping and robbery can have the purpose of obtaining property, and both can objectively involve the use of violence, coercion, and other compulsory measures, simultaneously infringing on citizens' personal rights and property rights. In practice, grasping the three key points of kidnapping is crucial to distinguishing it from robbery: (1) Kidnapping has compound behavior and temporal-spatial separation characteristics. A complete kidnapping act requires the combination of two behaviors: abducting hostages and extorting money from a third party. (2) Extortion in kidnapping can only be directed at a third party outside the hostage, meaning the direct targets of the perpetrator's threats and demands must be third parties, not the hostages themselves. (3) There exists a direct exchange relationship between the extorted money and the hostage, i.e., the common concept of paying money to release the hostage.
Thirdly, this case should not be classified as extortion. Both extortion and robbery subjectively aim to illegally possess public or private property. When they objectively exhibit the "two on-the-spot" characteristics, they are most difficult to distinguish in practice. The key to distinguishing the two lies in examining whether the degree of violent threats reaches a level that suppresses the victim's resistance. If it reaches a point where the victim has no other choice but to hand over the property on the spot, it constitutes robbery; otherwise, it is extortion. Note that the judgment of the degree of violent threats must be specific to each case, with the standard being that the victim's resistance has been objectively suppressed, rather than mechanically judging based on what would cause sufficient mental fear in a general person.
In summary, in practice, correctly distinguishing the above four crimes requires adherence to the following principles: First, combining the elements of the crime and the principle of "unity of subjectivity and objectivity" to accurately define the boundaries between different crimes; Second, observing the environment during the incident and whether the degree of violence and threats implemented by the perpetrator reached a level where the victim could not, dared not, or did not know how to resist; Third, if the case remains difficult to classify after analyzing both subjective and objective aspects but indeed constitutes a crime, it should be handled leniently according to the principle of "favoring the defendant when in doubt."
(Author's affiliation: Bao'an District People's Court, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province)