In the original judgment, the third party (the owner of the property sued) in the criminal private prosecution case claimed rights against the custodian, and in the original judgment, this court held that "the defendant's optional deposit must be retrieved by the depositor, which is not illegal."

The third party in the criminal private prosecution case (the owner of the property sued) claimed rights against the custodian, and in the original judgment, this court held that part of the judgment was that "the defendant's depositable property must be retrieved by the depositor and has no purpose of illegal possession", and the defendant was found not guilty, this expression was obviously absurd, the object of protection for the crime of infringing property was the ownership of the property, the defendant's claim was obviously illegal, the civil code custody contract stipulated that the third party could file a lawsuit with the people's court or apply for preservation, and the custodian had the obligation to notify the depositor, After the property involved in the case is enforced by the people's court, the custodian has no obligation to return the original property to the depositor. @Heilongjiang Provincial High People's Court @Supreme People's Court @Yichun Intermediate People's Court #学点法律避避坑 #