In judicial practice, behaviors such as “data modification” and “resale for profit” often receive varying legal classifications across different jurisdictions and court levels, creating significant sentencing disparities for similar offenses. Legal expert Shao Shiwei examines the crucial distinctions between theft, occupational misappropriation, and illegal acquisition of computer information system data crimes. The sentencing differences among these three charges are substantial. Illegal acquisition of computer information system data typically carries a maximum sentence not exceeding seven years, while theft and occupational misappropriation can result in sentences exceeding ten years or even life imprisonment when involving significant amounts. In internet companies, particularly gaming platforms, technical and operational staff with direct access to system interfaces, backend data, and internal management privileges frequently become subjects of occupational crime investigations when engaging in unauthorized operations or profit-driven misconduct. The core distinction between theft and occupational misappropriation lies in whether the perpetrator exploited official position privileges versus merely utilizing work-related opportunities. Position-based access involves legitimate administrative authority over virtual assets, while work-related opportunities leverage technical knowledge or system access without formal management rights. Regarding occupational misappropriation versus computer data crimes, the central issue concerns whether virtual properties constitute legally protected “assets” under criminal law. The implementation of Civil Code Article 127 in 2020, which explicitly recognizes “network virtual property” as legally protected, has significantly influenced judicial interpretations. Courts typically evaluate virtual assets based on virtual nature, value, exclusivity/control, legality, and labor investment. For cryptocurrency classification, established coins like Bitcoin demonstrate stronger claims to virtual property status due to mining investments and market valuation, while meme coins face greater uncertainty given their speculative foundations. The distinction between theft and illegal data acquisition depends on whether the targeted objects qualify as protected property. When virtual items primarily represent identity markers, service qualifications, or functional permissions without direct cash conversion capabilities, courts tend to classify them as “computer information system data.” Practical case outcomes demonstrate substantial sentencing variations. In one documented case, a defendant facing 100 million yuan in alleged damages saw charges shift from computer data crimes (carrying 5+ years) to occupational misappropriation, resulting in a three-year suspended sentence. Another case involving minimal Solana token profits saw theft charges dismissed entirely in favor of computer data crime classification. Legal professionals emphasize that effective defense strategies require sophisticated understanding of permission sources, data attributes, and system rules rather than simple statutory application. Each nuanced辩护 detail can significantly impact charge classification and sentencing ranges, potentially determining whether cases conclude as serious crimes, minor offenses, or even无罪 determinations.