By investigating the criminal judgments about the cases of stealing digital currency made by Chinese courts, not only can be found that the characteristics of the cases of stealing digital currency in China and many useful revelations for the judicial practice, can also be found that the proportion that Chinese courts consider the conduct of stealing digital currency as the crime of stealing is a half, the followed is the crime of illegally obtaining data of computer information system. Imaginative joinder of offences and the crime of destroying computer information system are very rare conclusions. The phenomenon that the conclusions of judging the conduct of stealing digital currency are very different with each other in the trial practice of Chinese courts results in the necessity of in-depth research on this issue in the theory of criminal law. Digital currency as a property benefit is a kind of data. Digital currency as incorporeal things should be included as the object of ownership. The conduct object of the crime of stealing “property” consequently includes digital currency. Digital currency is a restricted contraband. If the conduct of stealing of digital currency constitutes the crime of stealing or several crimes including this crime, the conductor should be given a lenient punishment. In judicial practice, we should firstly exclude pseudo cases of stealing digital currency. If the conductor implemented the conduct of “mining machines” and electricity, as well as the conduct of “mining” through using his or others’computers to create digital currency, such cases are not real cases of digital currency, and the former case should be returned to the track of stealing ordinary property. In the latter case, we should judge whether the crime of illegally invading into computer information system and the crime of illegally controlling computer information system are established. Then we should examine whether the conduct of stealing digital currency constitutes the crime of stealing and the crime of illegally obtaining computer information system data. The focus of the examination is whether the conduct of conductor meets the requirement of large amount in the crime of stealing and bad circumstances in the crime of illegally obtaining computer information system data. If the conduct of conductor does not meet the requirement of large amount but meet the requirement of bad circumstances, it constitutes the crime of illegally obtaining computer information system data. If the conduct of the conductor does not meet the requirement of bad circumstances but meet the requirement of large amount, it constitutes the crime of stealing. If the above requirements are not met, the conduct of the conductor does not constitute the two crimes. If the conduct of stealing digital currency of the conductor constitutes the crime of stealing and the crime of illegally obtaining computer information system data at the same time, the relationship between the two crimes is imaginative joinder of offences, and his conduct should be judged as the crime of stealing. In addition, we should also examine whether the conductor concomitantly and independently implemented the conduct of illegally invading into computer information system and the conduct of illegally controlling computer information system beside the conduct of stealing digital currency, if the above conducts are implemented, the whole conducts of the conductor should be considered as the crime of stealing, the crime of illegally invading into computer information system and the crime of illegally controlling computer information system, and the conductor should be given concurrent punishment for these several crimes.