Determination of minors robbing minors

Judging from the legislative intent of Article 7 of the Interpretation, the provisions of this article are mainly applicable to cases of "extortion" in which older minors bully younger minors and senior students bully junior students around the campus or in the school. The main reason is that the subjective malignancy of minor actors is relatively small, such as forcing junior students to take things or a small amount of money for the purpose of bullying the weak, dominating one party or teasing other minors. "The plot is obviously minor and the harm is not great." Looking at the case, firstly, the implemented behavior does not occur in a specific environment around or inside the campus, but in a public environment such as a theater, and its social impact and social harm cannot be equated with it. Second, the behavior is premeditated before implementation, and the means are mature. Third, the three people in this case are in a gang, and the object of action is older than the person involved, which is obviously different from bullying. It can be seen that the case was premeditated in advance, and the success rate was high. The social harmfulness is different from the nature of the general "extortion" cases around the campus. It is correct for the court to convict and punish him for robbery. In addition, the court can apply probation to the defendant, fully consider the comprehensive factors such as the defendant's being a minor at the time of committing the crime, the circumstances and consequences of the case, and embody the principle of "education first, supplemented by punishment" for juvenile offenders. Convicting and punishing him for robbery is a crime, and the application of probation reflects the priority of education. Through investigation, education and supervision during the probation period, he can better plead guilty, repent and turn over a new leaf.