在“偷换二维码案”中，行为人通过偷换商家设置的付款二维码，将顾客支付的货款非法占为己有。就此类案件的定性问题，理论上存在盗窃罪说 、 诈骗罪说和侵占罪说 ”等多种观点。在财产犯罪的场合，被害人的认定会对行为的定性产生重要的指引作用。从交易活动整体上看，顾客在交易中并不存在实质的财产损失，而商家则确实失去了在交易中应当获得的商品对价。因此，商家是 “偷换二维码案” 的被害人。 不能将“偷换二维码案”定性为诈骗罪的主要原因， 在于顾客在付款时 并未产生错误认识，主观上缺乏向行为人处分财产的处分意思，且商户自始至终仅具有向顾客收取商品对价的主观意图 。对“偷换二维码案”应当定性为 属于 盗窃罪的间接正犯行为，即行为人通过商家出示错误的付款二维码和顾客付款的行为最终实现了对商家应收价款的非法占有。

In the case of " secretly exchanging two dimensional code", the payment from the customer was taken illegally by the criminal by exchanging the payment code set by the store . In theory, there are many views on how to identity such cases, such as " larceny ", "fraud" and "embezzlement". In the case of property offence , the identification of the victim play s an important role in guiding the qualitative behavior. On the whole, there is no substantial property loss for customers in the transaction, while the merchants do lose the consideration they should get in the transaction. Therefore, the merchant is the victim of the "two dimensional code case". The main reason why we can't define the two dimensional code case" as fraud lies in the fact that the customers don't have a wrong understanding when they paid , the lack of intention to dispose of the property to the criminal , and the merchants only have the intention to collect the commodity consideration from the customers through the whole process . In conclusion, Secretly Exchanging Two dimensional Code " should be defined as the indirect offense of larceny.