According to the relevant judicial interpretation of theft, the characteristic of public and private property infringed by theft is that it can be controlled and possessed by people. The property that people can control and possess must be tangible things that can be identified according to the functions of the five senses. Control and possession are de facto domination. This domination is not only physical domination. Sometimes possession can be said to be a social concept. We must consider the nature of things, the time and space in which things are located, and decide whether something is occupied according to the general concept in society. Sometimes, even if physical or tangible domination cannot be realized, it can be considered as possession from the social concept. For example, watches and rings that can't be found at one time in one's own residence have not lost possession. Animals that are not used to returning to their owners' homes and around them will still belong to their owners even if they leave their homes. When the earthquake disaster occurs, the property moved out for temporary refuge and left on the roadside still belongs to the owner. The fish and pearl shells on the farm are owned by farmers. Watches, rings, livestock and fish mentioned here can still be the targets of theft. With the development of science and technology, intangible things can also be controlled by people, and can also be the object of theft, such as electricity, gas, mobile phone numbers and so on. Sunlight, wind, air, radio waves and magnetism that people can't control can't be the object of theft. So we can't say that the sheep is lost.
My opinion is to do a good job in the defense of light crime, starting with discretionary sentencing circumstances that are not stipulated by law, and this aspect can be freely played. Easy to get points. For example, first offense, peasant status, passive intention of crime (sheep delivered to the door actively), little social harm, voluntary return of stolen goods, voluntary return of stolen goods. It is wrong for the sheep-throwing party to use only one button.
Focus on passive intention. It can be said that Xu Ting's case is really about how people can not fall before temptation. Lack of expectation possibility.
The direction of innocent defense is civil unjust enrichment, but to be honest, there are laws in this respect. A bad argument is nonsense, and the court may not adopt your defense opinion. What constitutes theft must of course constitute unjust enrichment.