被害人同意在财产罪解释论中具有重要意义。占有人同意移转占有的,行为人不可能成立盗窃罪;如果同意是基于错误的认知,应考虑行为人是否成立诈骗罪。在ATM机上冒用他人取款卡的,就提取现金而言,由于得到了银行关于占有转移的同意,不成立盗窃罪,应按照信用卡诈骗罪中的“冒用他人信用卡”处理;就转账而言,作为债权人的存款人不可能同意占有的转移,应按照盗窃(债权)处理。在涉机器取财尤其是机器故障案件中,应充分考虑机器设置者是否已将占有转移意志尤其是针对此种故障下取财的反对意志进行客观化表达。 Victims agree on the interpretation of property crime is of great significance. If the possessor agrees to transfer ownership, it is impossible for the perpetrator to establish theft; if the consent is based on false cognition, consideration should be given to whether the perpetrator has established fraud. In the ATM machine fraudulent use of other people’s debit card, in terms of withdrawing cash, due to the bank’s consent on the possession of the transfer, not to establish theft, credit card fraud should be in accordance with “fraudulent use of other credit cards ”; The depositor, as a creditor, could not agree that the transfer of possession should be handled in the light of theft (claims). In the case of machine-made machines, especially machinery-failure cases, full consideration should be given to whether the machine-setter has objectively expressed the will to possess the transfer intention, especially against the will to take the financial assets under such a fault.