本文關(guān)鍵詞： 編造、故意傳播虛假恐怖信息罪 虛假恐怖信息 選擇性罪名 牽連犯　出處：《華東政法大學(xué)》2009年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】： 編造、故意傳播虛假恐怖信息罪,是全國人大常委會(huì)于2001年12月29日頒布的《中華人民共和國刑法修正案(三)》第八條(即修正后的刑法第二百九十一條之一)新增的一個(gè)罪名。近年來,編造、故意傳播虛假恐怖信息罪的案件在全國范圍內(nèi)頻發(fā),較之上述修正案頒布之前,其發(fā)案率呈明顯上升的態(tài)勢(shì)。此類犯罪往往針對(duì)的是政府、社會(huì)組織等公共機(jī)構(gòu),公司、企業(yè)等有影響力的單位,以及商場、賓館等公共場所,涉及面相對(duì)較廣、影響較大、危害后果嚴(yán)重。因此,必須依法嚴(yán)厲打擊此類犯罪。 但由于本罪是新增罪相對(duì)于其他傳統(tǒng)犯罪而言是一個(gè)較新或者說是較偏的罪名,相關(guān)司法解釋較少,在司法實(shí)踐中經(jīng)常會(huì)出現(xiàn)一些新情況新問題,可能會(huì)在認(rèn)識(shí)上產(chǎn)生分歧,致使該罪在司法適用上出現(xiàn)不統(tǒng)一、不均衡的現(xiàn)象。尤其在針對(duì)本罪的構(gòu)成要件、選擇性罪名問題及其適用、利用本罪的行為實(shí)施敲詐勒索犯罪的定性等問題上,理論界和實(shí)務(wù)界都沒有形成統(tǒng)一的認(rèn)識(shí),仁者見仁,智者見智,仍然處于爭論的狀態(tài)。對(duì)于一個(gè)新增罪名來說,理論界有研究有爭論是可以的,甚至是十分有益的;但是在司法實(shí)踐中,這種爭論持續(xù)的狀態(tài)必然會(huì)影響刑事司法實(shí)際效果。因此,本文本著理論研究應(yīng)盡量服務(wù)于實(shí)踐的原則,在總結(jié)前人研究成果的基礎(chǔ)上,結(jié)合自己在法院實(shí)習(xí)所接觸到的案例,提出自己的一孔之見,以求對(duì)我國的法制建設(shè)和刑法理論的完善貢獻(xiàn)個(gè)人微薄之力。 本文分為四部分,約三萬一千字。 第一部分,引言。該部分介紹了編造、故意傳播虛假恐怖信息罪在我國理論界的研究現(xiàn)狀和司法實(shí)踐現(xiàn)狀,研究該罪名的意義,以及應(yīng)注意的主要問題,引出本文論題。 第二部分,編造、故意傳播虛假恐怖信息罪概述。該部分首先介紹了編造、故意傳播虛假恐怖信息罪的立法沿革;其次通過我國關(guān)于編造、故意傳播虛假恐怖信息罪的第一案來介紹該罪的概念和特點(diǎn);最后分析了編造、故意傳播虛假恐怖信息罪的屬性,是否完全定性為恐怖活動(dòng)犯罪。 第三部分,編造、故意傳播虛假恐怖信息罪的構(gòu)成要件。該部分側(cè)重分析了編造、故意傳播虛假恐怖信息罪構(gòu)成要件中的難點(diǎn)問題,分為三個(gè)部分:首先是該罪的客體方面討論了其犯罪客體和犯罪對(duì)象;其次是該罪的客觀方面討論了“虛假恐怖信息”的定性、“編造、故意傳播”的含義和“嚴(yán)重?cái)_亂社會(huì)秩序、造成嚴(yán)重后果”的認(rèn)定問題;最后是該罪的主觀方面的問題討論。 第四部分,編造、故意傳播虛假恐怖信息罪的司法適用。該部分首先討論了關(guān)于該罪是否為選擇性罪名,該罪的具體罪名確定問題;其次討論了該罪與其他相關(guān)罪名的界限;最后討論了以編造、故意傳播虛假恐怖信息的方式敲詐錢財(cái)?shù)男袨槎ㄐ?包括定性依據(jù)和具體重罪輕罪的衡量。
[Abstract]:The crime of fabricating and deliberately disseminating false terrorist information, In December 29th 2001, the standing Committee of the National people's Congress promulgated the Criminal Law Amendment of the people's Republic of China (3) > 8th articles (that is, one of the 291th articles of the amended Criminal Law). The crime of intentionally disseminating false terrorist information frequently occurs throughout the country. Compared with before the above amendments were promulgated, the incidence of such crimes is obviously increasing. This kind of crime is often directed at the government, social organizations, and other public institutions and companies. Enterprises and other influential units, as well as shopping malls, hotels and other public places, involving a relatively wide, big impact, serious consequences. Therefore, we must crack down on such crimes according to law. However, as this new crime is a relatively new or partial crime compared with other traditional crimes, there are few judicial explanations, and there are often some new situations and new problems in judicial practice, which may lead to differences in understanding. It causes the disunity and imbalance in the application of justice, especially in the aspects of the constitutive elements of the crime, the problem of the selective charge and its application, the qualitative analysis of the crime of extortion by using the act of this crime, and so on. The theorists and the practitioners have not formed a unified understanding, different people see benevolence, different wisdom, still in the state of argument. For a new charge, it is possible for the theorists to have research and debate, even very useful; However, in judicial practice, this state of argument will inevitably affect the actual effect of criminal justice. Therefore, based on the principle that theoretical research should serve practice as far as possible, and on the basis of summarizing the previous research results, Combining with the case that he has come into contact with in court practice, this paper puts forward his own opinion in a hole in order to contribute to the construction of legal system and the perfection of criminal law theory in our country. This article is divided into four parts, about 31,000 words. The first part is the introduction. This part introduces the current research situation and judicial practice of the crime of fabricating and intentionally disseminating false terrorist information in our country, the significance of the crime and the main problems that should be paid attention to, which leads to the topic of this paper. The second part is an overview of the crime of fabricating and intentionally disseminating false terrorist information. This part first introduces the legislative evolution of the crime of fabricating and intentionally disseminating false terrorist information; secondly, through our country's legislation on fabricating, The first case of the crime of intentionally disseminating false terrorist information introduces the concept and characteristics of the crime; finally, it analyzes the nature of the crime of fabricating and intentionally disseminating false terrorist information, whether it is completely defined as a crime of terrorist activity. The third part, the constitutive elements of the crime of fabricating, intentionally propagating false terrorist information. This part focuses on the analysis of the difficult problems in the constitutive elements of the crime of fabricating and intentionally disseminating false terrorist information. It is divided into three parts: first, the object of the crime discusses the object of the crime and the object of the crime; secondly, the objective aspect of the crime discusses the characterization of "false terrorist information". The definition of "intentional communication" and the problem of "seriously disturbing the social order and causing serious consequences"; finally, the discussion on the subjective aspects of the crime. Part 4th, the judicial application of the crime of fabricating and intentionally disseminating false terrorist information. This part first discusses whether the crime is a selective crime and the problem of determining the specific charge of the crime, and then discusses the boundary between the crime and other related charges. Finally, the author discusses the characterization of extortion by fabricating and deliberately disseminating false terrorist information, including the qualitative basis and the measurement of specific felony misdemeanours.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2009
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李�；�;董文輝;;論走私、販賣、運(yùn)輸、制造毒品罪的立法完善[J];時(shí)代法學(xué);2011年03期

2 蔣毅;;變?cè)熵泿抛飸?yīng)納入偽造貨幣罪范疇[J];重慶文理學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2011年04期

3 張嬪;;淺析窩藏毒品罪[J];商業(yè)文化(下半月);2011年07期

4 ;[J];;年期

5 ;[J];;年期

6 ;[J];;年期

7 ;[J];;年期

8 ;[J];;年期

9 ;[J];;年期

10 ;[J];;年期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前1條

1 曹永東;潤青;;淺談假幣犯罪行為的定性[A];湖北錢幣�？偟诹赱C];2007年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 本報(bào)記者 金鎰;制造虛假恐慌 引來真實(shí)刑罰[N];哈爾濱日?qǐng)?bào);2010年

2 婁國標(biāo);法治時(shí)代你無權(quán)“口無遮攔”[N];工人日?qǐng)?bào);2003年

3 記者 何飛　通訊員 龔宣;一編造虛假恐怖信息男子被廣州警方刑拘[N];人民公安報(bào);2010年

4 記者毛磊;偵破兩起重大編造及故意傳播虛假恐怖信息案件[N];人民日?qǐng)?bào);2003年

5 記者 王書林　通訊員 許瑞堂 戴瓊;故意編造傳播虛假恐怖信息[N];人民法院報(bào);2010年

6 劉兆和 于志宏 本報(bào)記者 王盧莎;一句謊言的代價(jià)[N];遼寧日?qǐng)?bào);2003年

7 駐京記者 朱婧;編造爆炸客滾船虛假恐怖信息案告破[N];中國水運(yùn)報(bào);2008年

8 沈建坤;選擇性罪名的適用[N];人民法院報(bào);2003年

9 楊麗;編造虛假恐怖信息進(jìn)行敲詐屬牽連犯[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2003年

10 張俊;九江破獲恐怖信息案 罪犯坐牢一年零六個(gè)月[N];人民公安報(bào)·交通安全周刊;2005年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 吳曉華;謙抑還是失衡：選擇性罪名的刑罰配置與裁量解析[D];中南大學(xué);2011年

2 馬樣美;論選擇性罪名—兼評(píng)確定選擇性罪名的司法解釋[D];中南大學(xué);2011年

3 游華平;選擇性罪名的多維解讀[D];中國政法大學(xué);2012年

4 李愛華;編造、故意傳播虛假恐怖信息罪的相關(guān)案例分析[D];蘭州大學(xué);2011年

5 唐仲江;選擇性罪名研究[D];中國青年政治學(xué)院;2009年

6 劉玲;選擇性罪名研究[D];鄭州大學(xué);2006年

7 李再蘭;論刑法中的“數(shù)額累計(jì)計(jì)算”規(guī)則[D];湖南師范大學(xué);2012年

8 程德兵;論銷售金額[D];蘇州大學(xué);2010年

9 沈建坤;運(yùn)輸型犯罪司法適用問題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2010年

10 萬春艷;論限制死刑[D];西南政法大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號(hào)：1527397