本文選題：敲詐勒索罪　切入點(diǎn)：社會(huì)相當(dāng)性　出處：《武漢紡織大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)》2016年01期

【摘要】：我國(guó)刑法上"敲詐勒索"概念的模糊性,加上學(xué)理上的形式化解釋,導(dǎo)致了對(duì)敲詐勒索罪理解和認(rèn)定的混亂�，F(xiàn)實(shí)中不少欠缺刑事可罰性的勒索行為,甚至正當(dāng)?shù)木S權(quán)索賠行為,被錯(cuò)誤當(dāng)作敲詐勒索罪處理。敲詐勒索罪的合理認(rèn)定,應(yīng)秉持刑法謙抑精神,堅(jiān)持實(shí)質(zhì)解釋的立場(chǎng),從刑法的立法精神上準(zhǔn)確把握"敲詐勒索"應(yīng)有的不法內(nèi)涵,通過(guò)社會(huì)相當(dāng)性判斷和構(gòu)成要件相當(dāng)性判斷,對(duì)"敲詐勒索"進(jìn)行質(zhì)與量的界定,從而將那些在社會(huì)道德秩序內(nèi)的"社會(huì)相當(dāng)"行為和那些雖不具有社會(huì)相當(dāng)性但未達(dá)到刑事可罰程度的勒索財(cái)物行為排除于犯罪圈之外。
[Abstract]:The fuzziness of the concept of "extortion" in criminal law of our country, together with the formal explanation in theory, leads to confusion of understanding and cognizance of the crime of extortion.In reality, many lack of criminal punishment for extortion, or even legitimate rights claims, have been wrongly treated as extortion.The reasonable determination of the crime of extortion should uphold the spirit of modesty of the criminal law, adhere to the position of substantive interpretation, and accurately grasp the illegal connotation of "extortion" from the legislative spirit of the criminal law.Through social equivalence judgment and constitutive element equivalence judgment, the author defines the quality and quantity of "extortion".Thus, the behavior of "social equivalence" in the social moral order and those extortion acts which do not have social equivalence but do not reach the level of criminal punishment are excluded from the criminal circle.
【作者單位】： 中南民族大學(xué)法學(xué)院;
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3
，

本文編號(hào)：1710690