“敲诈”型“维权”行为研究

发布时间：2018-04-01 03:05

本文选题：敲诈”型“维权”行为　切入点：敲诈勒索罪　出处：《华东政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：公民行使权利的行为有时可能具备敲诈勒索罪的外观。此类行为表现为两个“形似”：一是形似“维权行为”（行为具有行使权利的表象），二是形似“敲诈勒索罪”（行为具有符合该罪构成要件的表象）。本文将此类行为统称为“敲诈”型“维权”行为（同时为“敲诈”和“维权”加上引号），意在从提法上避免对该类行为做“罪”或“非罪”的妄断。我国至今尚未形成对“敲诈”型“维权”行为性质的统一认识，，理论界也存在诸多争议。本文在明确“敲诈”型“维权”行为概念和特征的基础上，分别考察了域外和我国对该类行为的认定情况，进而在我国立法与犯罪构成理论框架下探讨此类行为与敲诈勒索罪之间的界限，最终从刑法价值高度得出规制此类行为所应当贯彻的根本原则。本文具体由以下三个部分构成：第一部分：“敲诈”型“维权”行为概述。首先，明确此类行为的概念和特征。所谓“敲诈”型“维权”行为，是指具有敲诈勒索罪和维权行为双重表象的行为。此类行为在维权主体、事由、手段等方面表现出多样特点。其次，考察域外对该类行为较为成熟的观点，为我国的理论与实践提供有益参考。最后，通过我国司法实践中的典型案例归纳出“敲诈”型“维权”行为认定的争议问题。第二部分：从犯罪构成视角看“敲诈”型“维权”行为。这一部分讨论的是在我国立法与犯罪构成理论框架内如何把握此类行为与敲诈勒索罪的界限。“敲诈”型“维权”行为是否构成敲诈勒索罪，在客观方面主要涉及两个问题：其一，威胁或要挟如何理解；其二，被害人的心理恐惧及其程度应如何认识。在主观目的方面，笔者重点关注的是索赔数额与主观目的的关系，以及非法占有目的的认定标准。综合主客观两个方面来看，判断“敲诈”型“维权”行为是否构成敲诈勒索罪，一要考察权利主张的诚实性，二要考察行为手段的适当性。第三部分：从刑法价值视角看“敲诈”型“维权”行为。该部分以动态的、发展的眼光认识表现形式不断变化和丰富的“敲诈”型“维权”行为，分析法的自由价值与秩序价值的关系，指出在刑法领域应以自由价值优先，对“敲诈”型“维权”行为的评价应持较为宽容的态度。为保障自由，避免维权行为脱离法治和理性的轨道，应增加维权渠道供给，简化、优化维权程序，让公众及时、便捷地行使权利。总之，对“敲诈”型“维权”行为的规制，要坚持私法自治原则和刑法谦抑性原则，在保障自由的同时引导权利的适当行使。
[Abstract]:The behavior of citizens exercising their rights may sometimes have the appearance of the crime of extortion. This kind of behavior is manifested as two "similarities": one is similar to the "act of safeguarding rights" (the act has the appearance of exercising the right), the other is the appearance of the crime of "extortion" (. This article refers to this kind of behavior as "extortion" type of "defending one's rights" behavior (both "extortion" and "protecting one's rights" in quotation marks), in order to avoid doing this kind of behavior in terms of "... The falsehood of sin or non-sin. So far, China has not formed a unified understanding of the nature of "extortion" and "safeguarding rights", and there are many controversies in the theoretical circle. This paper defines the concept and characteristics of "extortion" and "safeguarding rights". The author investigates the identification of such acts outside China and China respectively, and then discusses the boundary between such acts and the crime of extortion under the framework of the legislation and the theory of criminal constitution in our country. Finally, from the value of criminal law, the basic principles of regulating such behavior should be obtained. This paper is composed of the following three parts:. The first part: an overview of "extortion" and "safeguarding rights". First of all, the concept and characteristics of such acts are clarified. The so-called "extortion" type of "safeguarding rights", It refers to the behavior which has the double appearance of the crime of extortion and the act of safeguarding the rights. This kind of behavior shows various characteristics in the aspects of the subject, cause and means of safeguarding the rights. Secondly, it investigates the more mature viewpoint of this kind of behavior outside the country. Finally, through the typical cases of judicial practice in our country, we can conclude the dispute of "extortion" type "protecting rights" behavior. The second part discusses how to grasp the boundary between such behavior and the crime of extortion within the framework of our legislation and the theory of constitution of crime. Whether the act of "defending rights" constitutes the crime of extortion, In the objective aspect, it mainly involves two problems: first, how to understand the threat or threat; secondly, how to understand the psychological fear of the victim and its degree. In the aspect of subjective purpose, the author focuses on the relationship between the amount of claim and the subjective purpose. From the subjective and objective aspects, judging whether the "extortion" type of "safeguarding rights" constitutes the crime of extortion, the first is to investigate the honesty of the right claim, and the other is to investigate the appropriateness of the means of the act. The third part: from the angle of value of criminal law, the author looks at the behavior of "extortion" and "protecting rights" from the angle of value of criminal law. This part recognizes the changing forms of expression and the rich behavior of "extortion" from a dynamic and developing perspective. The relationship between the free value and the order value of the analytic method is pointed out. It is pointed out that the free value should be given priority in the field of criminal law, and the evaluation of "extortion" type of "protecting rights" should be more tolerant. Instead of deviating from the track of rule of law and rationality, we should increase the supply of channels for safeguarding rights, simplify and optimize the procedures for safeguarding rights, so that the public can exercise their rights in a timely and convenient manner. We should adhere to the principle of autonomy in private law and the principle of modesty in criminal law, and guide the proper exercise of rights while safeguarding freedom.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.35

【相似文献】