【摘要】：技術(shù)中立是對網(wǎng)絡(luò)技術(shù)提供行為進(jìn)行刑法歸責(zé)必須逾越的障礙,但刑法理論和司法實務(wù)難以提供圓滿解釋。網(wǎng)絡(luò)技術(shù)提供行為符合可容許風(fēng)險特征時屬正當(dāng)業(yè)務(wù)行為,排除犯罪成立;其超出社會所容許的程度才屬于刑法的規(guī)制對象。刑法應(yīng)平衡技術(shù)創(chuàng)新和法益保護(hù)二者的關(guān)系,限制網(wǎng)絡(luò)技術(shù)提供者的刑事責(zé)任。只有當(dāng)網(wǎng)絡(luò)技術(shù)提供者對所提供技術(shù)具有實質(zhì)控制力時,才負(fù)有客觀作為義務(wù),其主觀犯意應(yīng)根據(jù)"紅旗規(guī)則"和"避風(fēng)港規(guī)則"進(jìn)行認(rèn)定。
[Abstract]:Technology neutrality is the obstacle to criminal imputation of network technology providing behavior, but criminal law theory and judicial practice are difficult to provide satisfactory explanation. When the behavior of providing network technology conforms to the characteristics of allowable risk, it belongs to the legitimate business behavior and excludes the establishment of crime; it is beyond the allowable degree of society that it belongs to the regulatory object of criminal law. Criminal law should balance the relationship between technological innovation and legal interest protection and limit the criminal liability of network technology providers. Only when the network technology provider has substantial control over the technology provided, it has the obligation to act objectively, and its subjective criminal intention should be determined according to the red flag rules and the safe haven rules.
【作者單位】： 安徽大學(xué)法學(xué)院;
【基金】：國家社科青年項目“治安違法行為犯罪化問題研究”(16CFX029)
【分類號】：D922.16;D924.3

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)會議論文 前1條

1 毛牧然;吳景濱;;論網(wǎng)絡(luò)技術(shù)生態(tài)負(fù)向價值的技術(shù)與法律消解[A];第十屆沈陽科學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)年會論文集（經(jīng)濟(jì)管理與人文科學(xué)分冊）[C];2013年

，

本文編號：2245858