【摘要】：尋釁滋事罪在我國刑法理論研究和司法實(shí)踐中是爭議較大的一個罪名。在流氓罪沒有被廢止之前,尋釁滋事是其犯罪行為方式之一,1997年《刑法》的修訂中,廢止了流氓罪并設(shè)立了尋釁滋事罪,2011年《刑法修正案(八)》又對其進(jìn)行了修正,隨后幾年最高人民法院和最高人民檢察院又出臺了關(guān)于其相關(guān)的司法解釋和量刑指導(dǎo)意見,但是在尋釁滋事罪定罪量刑的司法實(shí)踐中還是存在一些問題。在尋釁滋事罪定罪的司法實(shí)踐工作中,因其犯罪行為方式與其他相關(guān)犯罪存在交叉重合情況,比如與故意傷害罪、搶劫罪、故意毀壞財物罪和聚眾擾亂社會秩序罪等罪的界限劃分模糊不定,容易混淆。通過研究解析尋釁滋事罪的犯罪構(gòu)成要件,明確了其犯罪主觀方面存在的“流氓動機(jī)”要素和犯罪的復(fù)雜客體等觀點(diǎn)主張后,可以明確劃分尋釁滋事罪與其他相關(guān)犯罪混淆的問題,對于某種行為是否為尋釁滋事罪的認(rèn)定,也可以進(jìn)行客觀正確的判斷。關(guān)于2013年《最高人民法院、最高人民檢察院關(guān)于辦理利用信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)實(shí)施誹謗等刑事案件適用法律若干問題的解釋》增加了利用信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)實(shí)施尋釁滋事罪的規(guī)定,也有必要明確理解利用信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)尋釁滋事罪的行為類型及認(rèn)定問題,以便尋釁滋事罪在網(wǎng)絡(luò)空間的應(yīng)用。對于網(wǎng)絡(luò)空間是否可以理解為公共場所的爭議,網(wǎng)絡(luò)空間應(yīng)該理解為公共場所,這樣才能發(fā)揮尋釁滋事罪在虛擬網(wǎng)絡(luò)世界中打擊造謠、傳播虛假信息等犯罪行為的功能作用,進(jìn)而維護(hù)網(wǎng)絡(luò)空間以及社會秩序的穩(wěn)定。司法實(shí)踐工作中判定一個行為構(gòu)成尋釁滋事罪后,那對其的量刑工作也需要認(rèn)真對待。根據(jù)法律法規(guī)、司法解釋和量刑指導(dǎo)意見等的規(guī)定,結(jié)合尋釁滋事罪本身的特點(diǎn),對尋釁滋事罪案件判定正確的法定刑幅度,明確兩款刑罰幅度的裁量標(biāo)準(zhǔn),最終實(shí)現(xiàn)罪責(zé)刑的相適應(yīng)。在對尋釁滋事罪案件量刑時,在堅持規(guī)范化的量刑方法前提下,結(jié)合尋釁滋事罪案件的犯罪事實(shí)情況,確定其量刑起點(diǎn)、基準(zhǔn)刑、宣告刑。因?yàn)閷め呑淌伦锉旧韺儆谳^輕的犯罪,所以在對其量刑時,在其符合緩刑和免除處罰的條件時,應(yīng)積極適用兩種刑罰方式,這樣既可以發(fā)揮兩種刑罰方式的功能,也能實(shí)現(xiàn)刑罰的教育改造目的,最終實(shí)現(xiàn)預(yù)防尋釁滋事罪的犯罪行為人再犯罪的目的。
[Abstract]:The crime of provoking and causing trouble is one of the most controversial crimes in the theoretical research and judicial practice of criminal law in our country. Until the crime of hooliganism was not abolished, the crime of hooliganism was one of its forms of criminal conduct, and in the 1997 revision of the Criminal Code, the crime of hooliganism was abolished and the crime of provoking hooliganism was established, and it was amended in the 2011 Amendment to the Criminal Code (VIII), In the following years, the Supreme people's Court and the Supreme people's Procuratorate issued the relevant judicial interpretation and sentencing guidance, but there are still some problems in the judicial practice of the conviction and sentencing of the crime of provoking trouble. In the judicial practice of criminalizing provocative and troublesome crimes, there are overlaps between their criminal conduct and other related crimes, such as intentional injury and robbery. The distinction between the crime of wilful destruction of property and the crime of disturbing social order is ambiguous and easy to be confused. Through the research and analysis of the crime elements of the crime of aggression and nuisance, the author makes clear that the elements of "hooliganism motive" and the complex object of the crime exist in the subjective aspect of the crime, and so on. We can clearly distinguish the confusion between the crime of provoking and causing trouble and other related crimes, and we can also make an objective and correct judgment as to whether a certain act is a crime of provoking and causing trouble. With regard to the 2013 interpretation by the Supreme people's Court and the Supreme people's Procuratorate on certain issues relating to the application of information networks in criminal cases, such as defamation, the provisions on the use of information networks for the crime of provoking and causing trouble have been added, It is also necessary to understand clearly the types of behavior and identification of the crime of aggression and nuisance by using information network in order to make use of the crime of aggression and nuisance in cyberspace. As to whether cyberspace can be understood as a dispute in a public place, cyberspace should be understood as a public place, so that it can play a functional role in combating mischief and spreading false information in the virtual cyber world. And then maintain the stability of cyberspace and social order. In judicial practice, the sentencing of an act should be taken seriously after it is judged to constitute a crime of provoking and causing trouble. In accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations, judicial interpretation and sentencing guidance, and in the light of the characteristics of the crime of provoking and causing trouble, the correct statutory range of punishment is determined in the case of the crime of provoking aggression and causing trouble, and the discretion standard of the range of the two penalties is defined. Finally realize the adaptation of the criminal responsibility and punishment. In the sentencing of the crime of aggression and nuisance, under the premise of adhering to the standardized sentencing method and combining with the criminal facts of the crime of aggression and nuisance, the starting point of sentencing, the standard punishment, and the declaration of sentence are determined. Because the crime of aggression and nuisance itself is a lesser crime, it is necessary to actively apply the two forms of punishment when sentencing them, when they meet the conditions of probation and exemption from punishment, so that they can play the role of both forms of punishment. It can also achieve the purpose of education and reform of punishment, and finally realize the purpose of preventing the crime of provoking and causing trouble from reoffending.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：河北大學(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(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 周軍;將尋釁滋事罪分解的可行性探究[J];天津市政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2004年03期

2 王良順;尋釁滋事罪廢止論[J];法商研究;2005年04期

3 馬彪;搶劫罪與尋釁滋事罪的“強(qiáng)拿硬要”區(qū)別[J];檢察實(shí)踐;2005年04期

4 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

5 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

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

7 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

8 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

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

10 李錦陽;劉瑜;;“隨意毆打”型尋釁滋事罪的定罪標(biāo)準(zhǔn)淺探[J];法制與社會;2013年12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(rèn)定[N];檢察日報;2001年

5 于明祥;尋釁滋事罪中“強(qiáng)拿硬要”之認(rèn)定[N];江蘇法制報;2005年

6 寧輝;強(qiáng)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(qiáng)迫交易罪[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)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(jì)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(shí)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(rèn)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：2444766