The traditional path of using "disciplinary awareness" as the key to the distinction between the two offences is questionable,as it takes "deception-misconception-disposition" as the condition for the establishment of the offence of fraud,which does not meet the doctrinal requirements of the act of committing fraud and the attribution of responsibility. As a condition for the establishment of the offence of fraud,it is not in line with the implementation of the offence of fraud and the doctrinal requirements of the attribution of responsibility. In the interpretation of the offence of fraud should adhere to the objective path,only "deception" is the establishment of the crime of fraud,the rest of the elements are the elements of attempted fraud,in the "disposal behavior" elements do not need to take into account "disposal consciousness",which is confirmed by the historical history and unlawful nature of the crime of fraud ("truth right infringement"). Therefore,the distinction between the two offenses should rely on the element of "deception",and the "risk differentiation theory" should be used as the criterion for the demarcation of the boundary between the two offenses on the basis of the objective theory of attribution:the act of theft in the crime of larceny creates a single linear risk against the legal interests of the property;while the "deception" of fraud creates the aggregated risk of directly triggering the victim's cognitive error and indirectly inducing the victim to dispose of the property. In terms of the number of offenses,the two offenses are competing statutes,with fraud being a mitigating statute for theft.
万方数据