Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the legal interpretation of whether village committee members assisting government in administrative tasks can be classified as "public servants" under Chinese law, particularly in the context of a case involving embezzlement of public funds by a village leader [1][3]. Group 1: Case Background - Xu, a party secretary of a village, was involved in a project funded by a street office to build a water reservoir for the village, which was outside the street's administrative jurisdiction [2]. - The street office allocated 300,000 yuan for the project, but Xu misappropriated 60,000 yuan by falsifying invoices [2]. Group 2: Legal Interpretations - There are two main viewpoints regarding Xu's actions: one argues that since the village is not within the street's jurisdiction, Xu does not qualify as a public servant and thus committed embezzlement; the other argues that Xu's actions fall under the category of public service as he was assisting the government in fulfilling its duties [3][6]. - The article supports the second viewpoint, asserting that the funds were public property intended for poverty alleviation and thus Xu's actions constituted embezzlement [4][6]. Group 3: Definition of Public Property - Public property is defined under Chinese law to include state-owned assets, collective assets, and funds designated for public welfare, such as poverty alleviation [4]. - The funds allocated for the water reservoir project are classified as public property since they were intended for a specific public purpose and controlled by the street office [4]. Group 4: Role of Village Committees - Village committees are considered autonomous organizations that do not inherently possess public authority unless they are assisting the government in administrative tasks [5]. - The article emphasizes that the classification of village committee members as public servants depends on their role in assisting government functions, which was applicable in Xu's case [5]. Group 5: Conclusion on Criminal Charges - Xu's actions are classified as embezzlement rather than misappropriation of collective funds, as he was acting in a capacity that involved public service [6]. - The distinction between embezzlement and misappropriation hinges on whether the individual was acting as a public servant while committing the act [6].