He was formerly the manager of the game division of a famous live broadcasting platform, responsible for the game live promotion work. Domestic famous game operating company commissioned the live platform to do a hot game market promotion work, and for the live promotion activities to create an exclusive customized game character clothing (game props) and in the form of CDK redemption code to send to HeMou, used as a game to promote the activities of the giveaway. He Mou and others sold the CDK exchange code and made a profit of more than one million yuan, the public security authorities believe that He Mou and others behavior is suspected of occupational misappropriation, and He Mou and others to take criminal coercive measures.

Beijing King&Capital Law Firm partner WangXinTong lawyers and LiSong lawyers as HeMou's defender, after analysis and judgment that HeMou's behavior does not constitute the crime of occupational misappropriation, in the stage of review and approval of arrest and procuratorate actively communicate with the defense, and ultimately get the insufficient evidence not to approve the arrest of the decision, all the parties involved in the case of release on bail pending trial, and the case was successfully withdrawn thereafter.

Lawyers believe that the crime of misappropriation requires the perpetrator to illegally occupy the company's property, causing property losses to the company, and the behavior did not cause the live platform company's property rights and interests suffered losses, and thus does not constitute the crime of misappropriation. Specific reasons are as follows:

First, the game props redemption code (CDK) live platform company free to obtain, free to send, expired

In order to promote the game, the game operating company free of charge to a large number of CDK code to the live platform company, the live platform company did not pay the price for the part of the CDK code, is free to obtain. In addition, the game promotion activities, CDK code that custom game mission clothing redemption code is also free to participate in the game live players, without charging any fees, and most of these redemption codes have an expiration date, the validity of the period of time is not redeemed will automatically expire.

Second, customized game task clothing game company and live platform company are not for sale, live platform company property rights and interests without loss

The live broadcast platform company itself does not promote the above game special customized version of clothing for sale, the game company also does not sell to the outside world. Because the special customized equipment live platform and the game company do not sell, so whether the live platform company or the game company's property rights and interests are no loss, this is the case is directly different from other similar cases are recognized as the decisive factor of the crime of misappropriation of the decisive factors.

Moreover, because the generation of CDK code has no actual cost, the amount of CDK code given by the game company is very large, far exceeding the activities required, the remaining portion is used for gifting or private sale, which in itself does not affect the amount of gifts in the promotional activities of the live broadcast platform company.

Therefore, the perpetrator of private sale of part of the customized game character custom clothing did not cause the live platform company's business loss, also did not affect the game operating company's game promotion activities.

Third, the virtual property should not be individual private transaction price to confirm its value

Although the CDK code in the case of individual transaction price, but it is not appropriate to recognize the market value of the CDK code with the price.

First of all, the online game props and other virtual property and the traditional meaning of property there are obvious differences, the legal attributes of virtual property is only the computer information system data, its value has been plagued by the judicial practice of the problem, the property value of property-based crimes is particularly prominent in the determination. At present, on how to determine the value of network virtual property, the theoretical and judicial practice has not been unified, can be generally recognized calculation standards and calculation methods. First of all, the current judicial interpretation does not provide for how the value of network virtual property is determined, and there is a lack of a clear basis for the determination of judicial practice; secondly, in an objective sense, network virtual property itself does not have a value, and the size of its value can only be agreed upon by the network user during the transaction, which makes it difficult to determine from an objective point of view, and it is difficult to objectively and impartially establish a third-party institution with specialized appraisal qualifications to determine.1 The value of network virtual property is determined by a third-party institution with specialized appraisal qualifications. Determination. 1.

Secondly, the judgment of the case has already rejected the practice of determining the value of virtual property by individual transaction price. In the case of Cao Mou and Chen Mou's Occupation of Functions (2015) Shennan Law Criminal Initial No. 132, issued by the Shenzhen Nanshan District People's Court,2 the court held that "[a]s to the amount of the crime in this case, because the amount of the sale of the object of the crime may be affected by the bargaining power of the buyer and the seller and fluctuate up and down and does not directly reflect the business losses of the victimized unit, the amount of the sale of virtual equipment by the Defendant Cao Mou cannot be deemed to be the amount of the crime. The amount of virtual equipment cannot be recognized as the amount of the crime in this case."

In summary, the actors involved in the case, such as the private sale of activities to promote the gift game props, although improper behavior, but the behavior did not damage the property rights and interests of the live broadcast platform company, so it does not constitute the crime of misappropriation of duties

Notes:

1 The characterization of theft of network virtual property--Taking the case of Yang Canqiang's illegal acquisition of computer information system data as a perspective[J]. Zang Desheng,Fu Wibing. Law application (judicial case).2017(16).

2 Cao a department of a company's membership products department as a game operation assistant, many times will be rewarded to participate in the game activities of the user after the excess game equipment generation code CDKey through the ShangMouJiang in the network for sale, finally the court only found that the official website of the same virtual equipment sold by the official selling price constitute job appropriation, the official website does not sell the part of the deductions to be deducted, does not constitute job appropriation.