But when the thing has been taken out of the store owner
An important and practical question of the criminality of theft within the meaning of § Paraone of the criminal code is the date of the completion of the act. And this is for a layman often not not so easy to see through. Many may have met already once, unintentionally, the objective offence of stealing in a supermarket. Someone put the goods in the Store in his jacket pocket, and before the output, there is already a shoplifter. Or even leave the building.
And what about someone who eats a product already in the supermarket and the empty package to the cashier and paid.
These and other questions need to be answered during the theft. Pivotal to this issue is the custody break. Because of § Para one of the criminal code requires the removal of a strange, moving thing. The Goods in the supermarket are, without a doubt, for the buyer, strangers, and moving things. Removal of the fractional strangers and Establish new detention. Custody is an actual, a rule will be worn over the domination relation. In General, a person has custody if he is in possession of the thing. Although the civil law the possession must not be with the criminal detention the same set, both terms on the social Association, so that you are usually congruent. The store owner has, in principle, a custody to all in his Shop contained goods. A"customer accesses it' now and is eating the goods, for example, a grape, or chocolate bars, so he at least meets the objective facts of the theft. Because Eating one thing is the most intensive Form of Grasping. It is thus this strange moving thing Here, the construct of the custody enclave. The goods is in the pocket of your jacket, so you - as the customer, and the jacket is still in the building of the shop owner, however the shop owner has no direct access (and view) more to his cause. A lot of the more the clothes pieces the customer has its own privacy, the store owner is not readily able to access. He would have to ask, therefore, for example, the"thief' to open his jacket pocket or backpack and get there insight is always connected with a certain effort. Therefore, the thing is that the store owners are already plugging the same taken away, since he makes no actual rule in the matter of exercises. So the answer is: There is a need, therefore, for the completion of the theft, no passing the cashier or even the Exit of the store. Already plugging in your own jacket meets the objective facts of the theft.
More difficult then treat the cases where the customer packs the goods in a brought in a shopping bag or a shopping Trolley, which are used in the rule as a legitimate means of transport for the office (and home later).
Here needs to be looked at case by case, whether in that particular situation is already a The removal has been completed or not.
The customer must generally have the intent of the act
Transparent shopping bags, or"open' Rolles, which provide some insight, are more likely to be less of a seizure than the"Hide the goods in the compartment. Here the behavior of the customers also plays a certain influence. To the completion of the theft, but also needs to add a subjective Moment. That is, he must hold it for possible, and at least tacitly accepted, that he takes a strange mobile thing. In addition, the offender must have the intention to, or to a third party, the thing zuzueignen. The offender must displace the previous owner permanently from his previous Position, and, at least temporarily, the thing to incorporate. This is the case, for example, as already explained above, even if a food is eaten in the Store. In this case, the owner of the Shop can not, of course, his The property position. The timing of the completion of theft is not only for the amount of the penalty, but also the question of whether he will ever be punished. Because as long as a fact is still in the experimental stage, could be the perpetrators of criminal liberating pursuant to section twenty-four, Para. one of the criminal code of the realization of the fact, resign. So it is, for example, if the shoplifter grabs in front of the cashier, the remorse, and he paid for the goods but (on the tape), or even back. But, as noted, has already been with the plugging of the goods in the jacket of the theft. In order for a cancellation after that is not possible. This leads in extreme cases to the Situation that a shoplifter is a product with dedication to intent in his jacket, and then at the checkout, the product pays, for theft is punishable by law. While shopping it has often, probably, as yet, no thoughts about how the products (to the cashier) be transported should. Not an accidental"criminal liability' in General, however, since it is often the intent of theft. Nevertheless, in a criminal case, the suspicion that one has acted intentionally. In many cases, the owner of the Shop will of course try to prove this. This should therefore be avoided entirely by the use of a shopping basket or see-through shopping bags. Because as an old proverb suggests: in court and on the high sea one is in God's hands.
