Theft is one of the oldest crimes against property, which has been dealt with by human beings since the creation of the right to property, and the perpetrator has always considered it deserving of punishment. In the current legal system, the punishment of a thief is ugly and forbidden where one of the obstacles to criminal responsibility has been met. Among the barriers of responsibility, the factors justifying the crime and the following factors, is the important issue of urgency. The conditions for realizing the urgency, the challenges of achieving it, the relationship between poverty and urgency, the system governing judicial decisions in this area, are among the important issues that are examined in the current study focusing on judgement No. 9309970269700866 on the subject of poor theft from the charity fund. Finally, based on objective insight and the system of legal evidence, by examining all the conditions in jurisprudence and law in the case of the poor thief, we come to the important conclusion that playing the role of urgency as a justifiable factor of crime is exceptional and illegal. In our current legal system, it is not possible to turn a blind eye to the evidence in the case and violate the rule of law by invoking the inner belief and conviction of the judge. The existence of a suspicion of urgency in the accused can at most preclude the application of the hadd punishment on him.