【摘要】：信息技術(shù)的日益更新給人們的生產(chǎn)生活方式帶來了變革,但網(wǎng)絡(luò)普及的同時,犯罪活動也從現(xiàn)實社會延伸到了網(wǎng)絡(luò)空間,對傳統(tǒng)刑法的適用提出了挑戰(zhàn)。近年來,在網(wǎng)絡(luò)上損害他人名譽、編造或散布虛假信息危害社會秩序的事件層出不窮,因此,兩高于2013年9月聯(lián)合出臺了司法解釋,將在網(wǎng)絡(luò)上的此種行為納入到"尋釁滋事罪"中進行規(guī)制。尋釁滋事罪因其行為方式多、認定模糊,被稱為"口袋罪",一直飽受爭議,這一司法解釋的出臺,又引發(fā)了理論和司法界對網(wǎng)絡(luò)型尋釁滋事罪適用問題的巨大爭議�！缎谭ㄐ拚�(九)》實施后,在網(wǎng)絡(luò)上編造、散布虛假的險情、疫情、災(zāi)情、警情的,以編造、故意傳播虛假信息罪進行定罪處罰,而對于除此四種之外的虛假信息如何規(guī)制卻未作說明。這一罪名的增加又使虛假信息罪名體系產(chǎn)生了新的問題。本文從司法解釋的爭議及網(wǎng)絡(luò)尋釁滋事行為適用中存在的問題入手,探討其他虛假信息行為仍然沿用司法解釋認定為尋釁滋事罪的不合理性,并提出刑法治理的完善路徑。本文分為四個部分:第一部分主要介紹尋釁滋事罪的歷史沿革、立法構(gòu)造和行為類型。尋釁滋事罪脫胎于流氓罪,之后經(jīng)由兩高解釋延伸至網(wǎng)絡(luò)空間,形成了四種傳統(tǒng)型行為方式,以及兩種網(wǎng)絡(luò)型行為方式。第二部分介紹網(wǎng)絡(luò)空間尋釁滋事罪的立法價值,通過分析其出臺背景,可知其使得網(wǎng)絡(luò)中虛假言論嚴重危害社會秩序的犯罪適用問題有法可依,在彌補刑法體系漏洞中具有一定積極意義。第三部分分析了網(wǎng)絡(luò)型尋釁滋事罪構(gòu)成要素中的爭議焦點,對"公共場所"、"公共秩序"、"起哄鬧事"等概念的屬性、范疇進行探討后認為,可以將"網(wǎng)絡(luò)空間"理解成"公共場所",但網(wǎng)絡(luò)中的行為被追究為尋釁滋事罪,實質(zhì)損害的仍然是現(xiàn)實空間中"公共秩序"而非"網(wǎng)絡(luò)秩序",在網(wǎng)絡(luò)中編造、散布虛假信息不能認定為"起哄鬧事"。第四部分主要從"網(wǎng)絡(luò)空間尋釁滋事罪的口袋化現(xiàn)象"、"如何與公民言論自由權(quán)進行平衡"以及"在現(xiàn)行虛假信息犯罪體系中如何適用"這三個角度進行探討。在《刑法修正案(九)》正式實施后,為避免虛假信息犯罪的罪名選擇中出現(xiàn)困難,應(yīng)當停止適用司法解釋中有關(guān)編造、散布虛假信息行為科處尋釁滋事罪的條款,以保護公民的正當權(quán)利,限制尋釁滋事罪的口袋化。
[Abstract]:The renewal of information technology has brought changes to people's way of production and life, but with the popularization of the network, criminal activities have extended from the real society to the cyberspace, challenging the application of the traditional criminal law. In recent years, there have been numerous incidents of damaging others' reputation, fabricating or disseminating false information and harming social order on the Internet. Therefore, the two countries jointly issued a judicial interpretation in September 2013. Such behavior on the Internet will be included in the "crime of provocation" to regulate. The crime of provoking and causing trouble has been controversial because of its many ways of behavior and its vague determination, which has been called the "pocket crime". This judicial interpretation has been issued. It has also caused a huge controversy in theory and in the judicial circles on the application of cyber-type crimes of provocation and disturbance. After the implementation of the "Amendment (9)" of the Criminal Law, it has been fabricated on the Internet to spread false and dangerous information, epidemic situation, disaster situation, and police situation, so as to fabricate, The crime of intentionally disseminating false information carries on the conviction and punishment, but it does not explain how to regulate the false information except these four kinds. The increase of this crime makes the system of false information crime produce new problems. This article starts with the dispute of judicial interpretation and the problems existing in the application of online provocative and troublesome behavior, discusses the irrationality of other false information acts still used in judicial interpretation, and puts forward the perfect path of criminal law governance. This paper is divided into four parts: the first part mainly introduces the history, legislative structure and behavior types of the crime of provoking and provoking trouble. The crime of provoking trouble originated from hooliganism, and then extended to cyberspace through two high explanation, forming four traditional behavior ways and two network behavior ways. The second part introduces the legislative value of the crime of provoking and causing trouble in cyberspace. By analyzing the background of the crime, we can see that it makes the criminal application of false speech seriously endangering the social order in the network in accordance with the law. It has certain positive significance in making up the loopholes in the criminal law system. The third part analyzes the focus of controversy in the elements of the network crime of provoking and provoking trouble, and discusses the attributes of the concepts of "public place", "public order", "hooting" and so on, and points out that the concept of "public place", "public order", "hooting" and so on. "Cyberspace" can be interpreted as "public place," but the behavior in the network is investigated as a crime of provocation and trouble, and the real damage is still "public order" in the real space, not "cyberorder", which is fabricated in the network. The dissemination of false information cannot be regarded as "hooting". The fourth part mainly discusses from the three angles of "the pocket phenomenon of the crime of provoking trouble in cyberspace", "how to balance with the civil right of freedom of speech" and "how to apply in the current criminal system of false information". After the formal implementation of the Amendment to the Criminal Law (9), in order to avoid difficulties in the choice of charges for the crime of false information, the provisions of the judicial interpretation concerning the crime of fabricating and disseminating false information should be stopped. In order to protect the legitimate rights of citizens, limit the pocket of the crime of provoking trouble.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：天津師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D924.3

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王良順;尋釁滋事罪廢止論[J];法商研究;2005年04期

2 馬彪;搶劫罪與尋釁滋事罪的“強拿硬要”區(qū)別[J];檢察實踐;2005年04期

3 邵宏生;;事出有因也能構(gòu)成尋釁滋事罪[J];人民檢察;2008年20期

4 李先華;舒惠安;孫媛媛;;涂某的行為構(gòu)成搶劫罪和尋釁滋事罪嗎[J];中國檢察官;2010年08期

5 叢珊;;淺析尋釁滋事罪的認定[J];中國商界(下半月);2010年11期

6 潘庸魯;;關(guān)于尋釁滋事罪中“隨意毆打他人”的理解與適用[J];北京人民警察學(xué)院學(xué)報;2011年01期

7 范再峰;;尋釁滋事罪問題探討——刑法第293條的犯罪構(gòu)成分析[J];商業(yè)文化(下半月);2011年12期

8 郭永剛;付四全;;尋釁滋事罪中“強拿硬要行為”與搶劫行為的區(qū)別[J];中國檢察官;2012年22期

9 李錦陽;劉瑜;;“隨意毆打”型尋釁滋事罪的定罪標準淺探[J];法制與社會;2013年12期

10 吳家林;;談我國刑法尋釁滋事罪的完善[J];法制博覽(中旬刊);2014年01期

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前10條

1 朝陽區(qū)法院 曹作和;網(wǎng)絡(luò)造謠為何涉尋釁滋事罪[N];北京日報;2013年

2 龔飛 史金國;如何區(qū)別尋釁滋事罪與搶劫罪[N];江蘇法制報;2013年

3 何立榮;他的行為夠成搶劫罪還是尋釁滋事罪[N];廣西政法報;2001年

4 瞿忠;尋釁滋事罪中“隨意毆打他人”如何認定[N];檢察日報;2001年

5 于明祥;尋釁滋事罪中“強拿硬要”之認定[N];江蘇法制報;2005年

6 寧輝;強迫交易罪與尋釁滋事罪的區(qū)別[N];江蘇法制報;2006年

7 李志霞;尋釁滋事罪若干問題分析[N];江蘇法制報;2007年

8 高農(nóng)文 劉仁安;是尋釁滋事罪還是強迫交易罪[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟報;2006年

9 尤小妹;朱某、趙某的行為構(gòu)成搶劫罪而不構(gòu)成尋釁滋事罪[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟報;2006年

10 北京市西城區(qū)人民檢察院 吳新華;何為尋釁滋事罪中“隨意毆打他人”[N];檢察日報;2009年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 張維;尋釁滋事罪問題研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2012年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 王波;尋釁滋事罪的理論和實踐探討[D];吉林大學(xué);2008年

2 胡寧寧;尋釁滋事罪探析[D];中國政法大學(xué);2008年

3 池益賢;尋釁滋事罪定罪問題研究[D];內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué);2009年

4 張英男;論尋釁滋事罪的認定[D];吉林大學(xué);2010年

5 任加順;尋釁滋事罪若干問題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2009年

6 王孝江;尋釁滋事罪研究[D];華東政法學(xué)院;2002年

7 汪際宏;論尋釁滋事罪[D];武漢大學(xué);2004年

8 鄭漫容;尋釁滋事罪相關(guān)問題探析[D];中國政法大學(xué);2007年

9 王化斌;尋釁滋事罪問題研究[D];上海交通大學(xué);2007年

10 朱鶯華;尋釁滋事罪研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號：2381953