网络服务行为刑事责任的类型化边界

发布时间：2018-06-15 10:39

本文选题：网络服务行为 + 类型化　；参考：《吉林大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：互联网的兴起给人们的生活带来便利的同时也给违法犯罪活动提供了工具和空间,关于网络服务行为是否应该由刑法进行规制的讨论一直是刑法理论界的焦点。《刑法修正案(九)》规定了 "拒不履行信息安全管理义务罪"和"帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪",正式将网络服务行为纳入刑法规制范围内。关于网络服务行为是否应当入罪以及在何种情况下应当入罪的讨论刑法学界以"中立帮助"理论和"共犯正犯化"理论为主。与以往研究不同之处在于,本文将使用理论解释、中外比较、类型化分析的研究方法结合广被关注的热门案件对上述罪名的刑事责任范围进行类型化讨论,从而明确网络服务行为的刑事责任范围。网络服务行为作为以技术为核心的行为类型不应将其局限于传统的刑法理论讨论范围内,笔者将网络服务行为以网络技术为基础进行了分类,以此作为判断网络服务行为刑事责任边界的标准,为刑法理论解释的运用提供形式基础。本文从结构上可分为四个部分:第一部分提出网络服务行为刑事责任讨论的新路径——类型化研究。借鉴德国《电信媒体法》等国外法律对网络服务行为的分类方式,将网络服务行为分为四种,即内容服务行为、存储服务行为、缓存服务行为、网络接入与信息传输服务行为。第二部分讨论"拒不履行信息网络安全管理义务罪"的刑事责任类型化边界。明确各类网络服务行为的安全管理义务来源、监管机构、通知方式、构成要件等问题,并结合"快播案"进行案例分析。第三部分讨论"帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪"的刑事责任类型化边界。首先明确共犯正犯化的理论基础,否定量刑标准理论;其次限制中立帮助行为入罪标准,提出以客观说为基础的折中说理论;再次限制网络服务行为类型化入罪标准,分别考量不同类型网络服务行为的犯罪风险、义务履行能力、公益利益、是否"明知"等因素;最后协调该罪与共犯理论的冲突问题,提出以共犯从属理论为基础对构成要件进行实质解释新视角。第四部分明确"拒不履行信息安全管理义务罪"和"帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪"的界限。两罪虽然都存在不履行作为义务的不作为要素,但从主客观要件进行分析,能够更好的区分此罪与彼罪。
[Abstract]:The rise of the Internet not only brings convenience to people's lives, but also provides tools and space for illegal and criminal activities. The discussion about whether the network service behavior should be regulated by the criminal law has always been the focus of the criminal theory circle. < Criminal Law Amendment (9) > stipulates the crime of refusing to fulfill the duty of information security management "and" helping the information network crime " Crime of criminal activity ", formally bring the network service behavior into the scope of criminal law regulation. The discussion on whether and under what circumstances network service behavior should be criminalized is mainly based on the theory of "neutral help" and the theory of "accomplice principal offense". Different from previous studies, this paper will use theoretical explanation, comparison between China and foreign countries, and research methods of typology analysis to discuss the scope of criminal responsibility of the above-mentioned charges in combination with popular cases of widespread concern. In order to clarify the scope of criminal responsibility of network service behavior. As a kind of behavior with technology as the core, the network service behavior should not be confined to the traditional criminal law theory discussion, the author classifies the network service behavior based on the network technology. It is regarded as the standard to judge the boundary of criminal responsibility of network service behavior and provides the formal basis for the application of criminal law theory. This paper can be divided into four parts from the structure: the first part puts forward a new path to discuss the criminal responsibility of network service behavior-type research. Based on the classification of network service behavior in German telecom media law and other foreign laws, this paper classifies network service behavior into four types: content service behavior, storage service behavior, cache service behavior, network access and information transmission service behavior. The second part discusses the criminal liability classification boundary of "refusing to fulfill the obligation of information network security management". This paper clarifies the source of the security management obligation, the supervision organization, the notification method and the composing elements of all kinds of network service behavior, and analyzes the case of "Quick broadcast case". The third part discusses the boundary of criminal liability classification. Firstly, the theoretical basis of accomplice is clarified, and the theory of sentencing standard is negated; secondly, the criterion of neutral aiding behavior is restricted, and the eclectic theory based on objective theory is put forward; again, the criterion of classifying network service behavior is restricted. Taking into account the criminal risk, the ability to fulfill the obligation, the public interest, whether or not "knowing" about the different types of network service behavior, and finally coordinating the conflict between the crime and the theory of accomplice. Based on the theory of accomplice subordination, a new angle of view is put forward to explain the essential elements. The fourth part defines the crime of refusing to fulfill the obligation of information security management and the crime of helping information network criminal activities. Although the two crimes have the elements of not performing the obligation to act, it can better distinguish this crime from the other crime by analyzing the subjective and objective elements.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D924.1

【相似文献】