發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-12-07 18:24

【摘要】：網(wǎng)絡(luò)技術(shù)的發(fā)展如火如荼,隨之而來,網(wǎng)絡(luò)犯罪占全國(guó)犯罪總數(shù)的比重也越來越大。網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者作為網(wǎng)絡(luò)運(yùn)作鏈條上的關(guān)鍵一環(huán),以其技術(shù)上的優(yōu)越性、先進(jìn)性,擔(dān)負(fù)起了更多的法律義務(wù),在打擊網(wǎng)絡(luò)犯罪過程中扮演著越來越重要的角色。但由于刑法對(duì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者刑事責(zé)任的規(guī)定不完善,所以在實(shí)踐中,越來越多的網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者由于不履行網(wǎng)絡(luò)安全管理義務(wù),造成嚴(yán)重后果的情形難以找到合適的法律依據(jù)去定罪量刑,立法上不得不考慮運(yùn)用刑法這最后一道屏障來發(fā)揮社會(huì)治理的效果。因此,《中華人民共和國(guó)刑法修正案(九)》(以下簡(jiǎn)稱為《刑法修正案(九)》新增拒不履行信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)安全管理義務(wù)罪,即《刑法》第二百八十六條之一,對(duì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者違反信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)安全管理義務(wù),經(jīng)監(jiān)管部門責(zé)令采取改正措施拒不改正,情節(jié)嚴(yán)重的行為作了入罪規(guī)定。一方面為了凈化網(wǎng)絡(luò)環(huán)境,維護(hù)正常的網(wǎng)絡(luò)秩序,刑法制定該罪具有立法上的擴(kuò)張性。但另一方面本罪畢竟屬于不作為犯罪,犯罪行為以不作為的方式呈現(xiàn),在入罪判斷中必須要謹(jǐn)慎,以免不當(dāng)?shù)財(cái)U(kuò)大刑法的打擊范圍。在相關(guān)法律、法規(guī)還不完善的情況下,在認(rèn)定構(gòu)成拒不履行信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)安全管理義務(wù)罪的過程中,還存在一些疑難問題。例如,網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者具體都有哪些?網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者的范圍通過何種方法來界定?網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者的信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)安全管理義務(wù)又有哪些?主觀方面屬于故意還是過失等一系列問題的解決,都需要對(duì)法條進(jìn)行合理審慎地解釋,才能有效地防止打擊面的隨意擴(kuò)大,從而保障人權(quán)。本文共分為四章。第一章通過研究分析,明確了拒不履行信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)安全管理義務(wù)罪所保護(hù)的法益。第二章是對(duì)該罪客觀構(gòu)成要件中的存在爭(zhēng)議的相關(guān)各要素進(jìn)行了具體認(rèn)定。第三章重點(diǎn)對(duì)該罪的主體范圍進(jìn)行了界定,并對(duì)本罪主體做了功能性的區(qū)分,進(jìn)一步細(xì)化了不同網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供主體的義務(wù)。第四章對(duì)該罪主觀方面屬于故意還是過失進(jìn)行分析判斷,并最終認(rèn)定該罪主觀方面屬于故意。
[Abstract]:With the development of network technology, network crime accounts for more and more crimes. As a key link in the network operation chain, network service providers have assumed more and more legal obligations because of their technical superiority and advanced nature, and are playing a more and more important role in the process of cracking down on network crime. However, due to the imperfection of the criminal law on the criminal liability of network service providers, in practice, more and more network service providers fail to fulfill their network security management obligations. It is difficult to find a suitable legal basis for conviction and sentencing in the situation of serious consequences, so we have to consider the use of criminal law as the last barrier to bring into play the effect of social governance. Therefore, the Criminal Law Amendment (9) of the people's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Law Amendment (9) adds the crime of refusing to perform the duty of managing information network security, that is, Article 286 of the Criminal Law, To the network service provider violates the information network security management obligation, after the supervision department orders to take the correction measure refuses to correct, the serious circumstance behavior has made the incrimination stipulation. On the one hand, in order to purify the network environment and maintain the normal network order, the criminal law formulation of the crime has legislative expansibility. But on the other hand, this crime is a crime of omission after all, the criminal behavior is presented in the form of omission, in the judgment of incrimination, we must be careful so as not to unreasonably expand the scope of the criminal law. Under the condition that the relevant laws and regulations are not perfect, there are still some difficult problems in the course of determining the crime of refusing to fulfill the duty of information network security management. For example, what are the network service providers? How can the scope of network service providers be defined? What are the network security management obligations of network service providers? To solve a series of problems, such as intentional or negligent, the subjective aspect needs to be interpreted reasonably and carefully in order to effectively prevent the random expansion of the attacking area and protect human rights. This paper is divided into four chapters. The first chapter, through research and analysis, clarifies the legal benefits protected by the crime of refusing to fulfill the obligation of information network security management. The second chapter is to the objective elements of the crime of the existence of the relevant elements of the specific identification. The third chapter focuses on the definition of the scope of the main body of the crime, and makes a functional distinction to the main body of the crime, further refining the obligations of different network service providers. The fourth chapter analyzes whether the subjective aspect of the crime is intentional or negligent, and finally determines that the subjective aspect of the crime is intentional.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：廣州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李本燦;;拒不履行信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)安全管理義務(wù)罪的兩面性解讀[J];法學(xué)論壇;2017年03期

2 李永升;袁漢興;;拒不履行信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)安全管理義務(wù)罪的理解與適用[J];宜賓學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2017年02期

3 葛立剛;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商不作為刑事責(zé)任的邊界[J];西南政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2016年06期

4 敬力嘉;;非確定性背景下網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者的刑事歸責(zé)——基于實(shí)行行為視角的思考[J];云南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(法學(xué)版);2016年06期

5 劉艷紅;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)中立幫助行為可罰性的流變及批判——以德日的理論和實(shí)務(wù)為比較基準(zhǔn)[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2016年05期

6 喻海松;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)犯罪的立法擴(kuò)張與司法適用[J];法律適用;2016年09期

7 王華偉;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者的刑法責(zé)任比較研究[J];環(huán)球法律評(píng)論;2016年04期

8 涂龍科;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)內(nèi)容管理義務(wù)與網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者的刑事責(zé)任[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2016年03期

9 郭澤強(qiáng);張曼;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者刑事責(zé)任初論——以中立幫助行為的處罰為中心[J];預(yù)防青少年犯罪研究;2016年02期

10 于志剛;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)空間中犯罪幫助行為的制裁體系與完善思路[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2016年02期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前5條

1 花岳亮;涉網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者的共同犯罪問題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

2 程亮;網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者的安全保障義務(wù)研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

3 幸江;論網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者的侵權(quán)責(zé)任[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2011年

4 岳亭;網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺(tái)提供商法律責(zé)任研究[D];北方工業(yè)大學(xué);2010年

5 邢君;網(wǎng)絡(luò)中間服務(wù)商的侵權(quán)責(zé)任研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2006年

，

本文編號(hào)：2367633