顾某等强迫交易案评析

发布时间：2019-04-16 16:20

【摘要】：近年来，强迫交易的案件时有发生，强迫交易罪的行为人往往使用暴力、威胁等手段，侵害市场交易主体的人身、财产等权利。虽然立法在不断完善，但是并没有相对应的司法解释对此行为予以规制，尤其是受长期以来司法实践中存在的陈旧观念的影响，导致了刑法理论界和司法人员对强迫交易罪的认识产生了巨大分歧。如何正确认定强迫交易罪、合理区分强迫交易罪与相关犯罪的界限一直是司法实践中的一大难题，这就要求我们要认真细致的研究和解读新的法律条文。通过对顾某等强迫交易案这一具体案件分析，从法院的审理情况入手，梳理案情，理清本案的争议焦点，第一顾某等人的行为是否构成犯罪，第二定罪上应该定强迫交易罪还是抢劫罪。构成犯罪与否主要是从犯罪的基本特征和犯罪的构成要件来分析，而对于罪名的区分不仅需要分析犯罪构成的差别，还需要理清以下几个关键问题的定性：一是行为人与被害人之间是否存在特定的交易；二是行为人牟取的非法经济利益超出合理价钱、费用的绝对数额和比例；三是行为人使用暴力、威胁手段的程度。此外还必须考虑法律概念本质和案件事实本质的关联程度。最后可以得出如下结论：首先，本案中顾某等人的行为具有犯罪的基本特征，符合犯罪的构成要件，构成犯罪。其次，从犯罪构成要件整体分析可以得出本案不构成抢劫罪。最后，行为人主观上具有牟取非法经济利益的目的与强迫交易的故意，客观上利用暴力、威胁的手段实施了强迫交易的行为11次之多，，交易金额超出正常费用的60倍，不仅严重侵犯了被害人的人身权和财产权，同时也侵犯了公平、自由的市场竞争秩序，情节十分严重，所以本案应定性为强迫交易罪。对顾某等强迫交易案的评析体现了解读法治、适用法律过程中所应秉持的司法理念。审判的过程实际上是法官通过事实的确认将法律运用到具体场合的过程。这一过程当然应贯彻以事实为依据，以法律为准绳的原则，但当法官面临事实行为界定困难或法律文本语义模糊时，不妨采取更为谦抑的态度，以公正为出发点去判断案情、选择适用的法律。只有这样，才能真正实现刑事审判的司法公正性。
[Abstract]:In recent years, the cases of forced transaction occur frequently. The perpetrators of the crime of forced transaction often use violence, threats and other means to infringe on the rights of the main body of the market transaction, such as the person, property and so on. Although the legislation is constantly improving, but there is no corresponding judicial interpretation to regulate this behavior, especially by the long-standing judicial practice of the stereotype of the influence of the concept, Led to the criminal law theory and judicial personnel's understanding of the crime of forced transaction has produced great differences. How to correctly identify the crime of forced transaction and reasonably distinguish the boundary between the crime of forced transaction and related crimes has always been a difficult problem in judicial practice, which requires us to study and interpret the new legal provisions carefully and carefully. Through the analysis of the specific case of the forced transaction case of Gu et al, starting with the hearing of the court, combing the case, clarifying the focus of the dispute in this case, whether the behavior of the first Gu and others constitutes a crime or not, The second conviction should be imposed on the crime of forced trading or robbery. Whether the crime is constituted or not is mainly analyzed from the basic characteristics of the crime and the constituent elements of the crime, and the distinction of the crime not only needs to analyze the difference of the constitution of the crime. It is also necessary to clarify the following key issues: first, whether there is a specific transaction between the actor and the victim; The second is that the illegal economic benefit obtained by the actor exceeds the reasonable price, the absolute amount and the proportion of the cost, and the third is the extent of the perpetrator using violence and threatening means. In addition, it is necessary to consider the degree of connection between the nature of legal concept and the nature of the facts of the case. Finally, the following conclusions can be drawn: firstly, the behavior of certain people in this case has the basic characteristics of the crime, which conforms to the constituent elements of the crime and constitutes a crime. Secondly, from the overall analysis of the constituent elements of the crime, it can be concluded that this case does not constitute the crime of robbery. Finally, the perpetrator subjectively has the purpose of seeking illegal economic benefits and the intention of forcing transactions, objectively using violence, threatening means to carry out forced transactions of 11 times, the amount of transactions more than 60 times the normal cost, Not only seriously violated the victim's personal rights and property rights, but also violated the fair and free market competition order, the circumstances are very serious, so this case should be characterized as a crime of forced trading. The analysis of the forced transaction case of Gu and so on embodies the judicial idea which should be held in the process of interpreting the rule of law and applying the law. The process of trial is in fact a process in which the judge applies the law to specific situations through the confirmation of facts. This process should, of course, be based on facts and be based on the principle of law, but when judges face difficulties in defining factual acts or ambiguous semantics of legal texts, they may wish to adopt a more modest attitude and take justice as the starting point for judging the case. Choose the applicable law. Only in this way, can we truly realize the justice of criminal trial.
【学位授予单位】：湖南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.3

【参考文献】