本文以在2009年因和广东许霆案极为相似而受到全国关注的云南“许霆”案——何鹏利用ATM机故障多次取款案为研究对象，对案件所涉及的三个法理问题，即从犯罪构成角度论证何鹏的行为是否构成盗窃罪的研讨、对于何鹏的行为是否构成侵占罪的研讨、以及对本案审理所引发的理论探索做了细致的研究，并进行了既具有针对性而又生发开去的探讨，结合本案具体案情，试图通过理论结合实际的论证，为更好的应对近年来所不断发生的与ATM机有关的犯罪现象，提高相关理论研究和司法实践水平贡献微薄之力。本文共分为五章：第一章主要介绍了选案的理由，基本的案情，法院的判决要旨，以及由案件所引发的理论问题。由本案所研究的案例，可以引申出三个方面的问题：一对何鹏的行为是否构成盗窃罪进行研讨；二是对于何鹏的行为是否构成侵占罪的研讨；三是对于本案审理所引发的理论探索。第二章围绕着犯罪构成理论，探讨了何鹏的行为是否构成盗窃罪。在本章中，根据刑法理论，笔者肯定了何鹏的行为符合盗窃罪的主观方面要件的特征。其次，笔者以盗窃罪犯罪构成的核心要件“秘密性”着手，论证了何鹏行为符合盗窃罪的客观行为要件秘密性的要求；但是从犯罪对象的角度，结合“自己所占有的财物”不能作为盗窃罪的犯罪对象的理论，根据本案的具体情况，笔者否认了何鹏的行为构成盗窃罪的可能性。第三章围绕着相关的民法理论和刑法理论，笔者对于何鹏的行为是否构成侵占罪进行了探讨。在本章中，笔者首先对何鹏在确定了由于意外而使得其银行帐面多出一笔巨款后，而多次取款的行为进行了定性——是由开始的不当得利所转化的民事侵权行为。其次，结合刑法侵占罪的有关理论，在讨论了“拒不退还、拒不交出”是作为侵占罪的情节要件而非行为要件的基础上，认定何鹏因具有积极返还赃款的情节要件，决定了其行为虽然已从不当得利转化为了侵权行为，但是在情节上仍没有达到成立侵占罪的社会危害性和主观恶性的要求，进而排除了何鹏的行为构成侵占罪的可能。第四章由本案审理所引发的理论探索。首先，笔者指出在司法实践中，一些司法人员过于注重社会危害性在定罪量刑中的作用而忽略了刑事违法性；之后针对许霆案件和何鹏案件的比较分析，并结合银行在本案中存在的过错为着眼点指出本案审理违背刑法公平公正基本原则。结束语，通过对全案进行梳理，对当前司法实践和理论研究中存在的问题略述管见。

In this paper, the target is the theft offenses case by He Peng in Y u Nan province in 2009, the case involved three counts of the most controversial——analyzing by the knowledge of constitution of crime , whether the conduct of He Peng constitutes a crime , under the malfunction of ATM, the character of the multiple withdraws behavior of He Peng, the thinking of the problems in the trialing the case of He Peng.This paper is divided into five chapters as following:The first chapter introduced the basic situation of the case, the main content of the judgment of the Court, as well as cases arising from the theoretical and practical issues. Research from the case, three controversial issues can be derived: First, analyzing by the knowledge of constitution of crime , whether the conduct of He Peng constitutes a crime , under the malfunction of ATM, the other is how to understand the character of the multiple withdraws behavior of He Peng, the last one is the thinking of the problems in the trialing the case of He Peng..The second chapter constitutes a theory surrounding the crime, the behavior of the He Peng constitutes theft. In this chapter, according to criminal law theory, the author affirmed He Peng's actions are consistent with the subjective elements of theft feature. Secondly, the writer constitute the core elements of crime of theft "secret" ,He Peng demonstrated behavior consistent with the objective conduct element of theft confidentiality requirements; but from the perspective of the object crime, combined with "share some of his property" can not As the object of theft crime theory, according to the specific circumstances of the case, the author denies He Peng constitutes the theft.In the third chapter, the author affirms that He Peng ‘s behavior is not a crime but an ordinary civil violations ,under the comparing of the similarities and differences between undeserved benefits and the civil torts of unjust enrichment, the last ,when the ATM machines malfunction ,the character of many occasions withdrawal behavior in nature is from the beginning of unjust enrichment into a final civil tort.In the third chapter，revolving the civil law theory and the criminal law theory which is related, the author regards that He peng’s behavior whether constitutes the crime of embezzlement . In this chapter, firstly the author affirms that after He Peng determined his bank account had many a great sum of money by accident, the behavior of his many times drawing money had carried on qualitative - - is by starts not, when profits the tort which transforms. Next, according the theory of the embezzlement, the author discussed “has refused to return, to refuse to hand over” which didn’t invade crime's plot important document but for the behavior elements, recognized that He Peng had returned the ill-gotten money had decided its behavior had still not achieved the establishment in the plot to invade crime's social hazardous nature and the subjective malignant request, then denied that He Peng’s behavior constituted the crime of invade .In the forth chapter, thinking from the theory of the case tried to explore. First of all, the author pointed out that in judicial practice, a number of judicial officers focus too much on social harm in the conviction and sentencing in the neglect of the role of a criminal offense; afterward aims at the Xu Ting and He Peng cases for comparative analysis, combined with banks that exist in the case pointed out that the fault for the focus to hear the case against the criminal law the basic principles of fairness and impartiality.Chapter V is the conclusion, through the whole case to sort out the Opinion of the current judicial practice and theoretical research on the issue briefly.