许霆案在广东省高院维持了原判,被告的父亲表示要继续申诉。对今后的情况笔者很难估计,但是对许霆案中一些涉及法理的问题,总觉不吐不快。许霆的取款行为在客观上有两个最基本的特征:一是利用取款机的错误,二是使用真实的工资卡。这两个最基本的特征也是最基本的事实,我们从性质上给许霆的行为做界定时,不能脱离这两个基本事实。以此基本事实为依据进行分析,就可以发现,许霆的行为在本质上就是一种恶意取款行为,即故意利用取款机的错误多取钱款。把许霆这种恶意取款行为与盗窃行为进行比较,二者之间的区别至少有以下三点:第一,二者的表现形式不同。许霆的恶意取款行为是双向的,即许霆行为与银行行为的互动;而盗窃行为却是一个单向行为。如果用符号表示的话,许霆的恶意取款行 Xu Ting case in Guangdong Provincial High Court upheld the original verdict, the defendant’s father said he would like to continue to appeal. The future situation is difficult for the author to estimate, but some of the cases involving the jurisprudence of Xu Ting always feel uncomfortable. Xu Ting’s withdrawal behavior objectively has two basic characteristics: First, the use of ATM errors, the second is to use a real wage card. These two most basic features are also the most basic facts. When defining the behavior of Xu Ting in nature, we can not deviate from these two basic facts. Based on this basic fact analysis, we can find that Xu Ting’s behavior is essentially a malicious withdrawal behavior, that is, the intentional use of ATM errors and more money. The comparison between Xu Ting, a malicious act of withdrawing money and theft, has at least the following three points: First, the two manifest themselves in different forms. Xu Ting malicious withdrawal behavior is a two-way, that Xu Ting behavior and bank behavior interaction; and theft is a one-way behavior. If symbolic, Xu Ting malicious withdrawal