A Study On The Determination Of The Crime Of Confusing The

Affray behavior is a typical criminal violation of the rules of public administration and social order, it was regarded as the traditional sense, it happens in the real world. However, with the development of the new media, disinformation behavior in cyberspace becoming even more serious, especially in the Chinese cultural background, gossip is a fearful thing, rumors killings are common phenomenon, it’s necessary to regulate internet rumors. The judicial interpretation of internet defamation made by China’s two highest judicial authorities paragraph suggests "the network space" can be directly incorporated into "public places", it seems that this regulation could clear up internet rumors, but it was a analogical interpretation.Based on the "explain" under the background of carrying out, the article research from the aspect of the perspective of judicial practice and theoretical research for "network rumor", analysing disputes and problems exists in the recognition of stir-up-trouble crime. The cyberplace isn’t the public place, "stir trouble in public places" shouldn’t be described as "spread fabricating false information on the information network" and "public places disorder" can’t be described as "disruption of public order", although it seems to be able to explain the behavior of the network disinformation, but the expansion of criminal law concept’s interpretation beyonds the people’s possibility of prediction. The standard of definiting "serious disruption" should not be quantified simply as clicks, forwarding number, the number of posts.The essence of "Internet rumors type" stir-up-trouble crime is "useing the information net-work as a tool". "Fabricating and spreading false information" can not be equated to "stir trouble", it is only a mean to stir trouble. Judicial practice applicable "interpretation" should follow the spirit of the Constitution, it can not interfere with the right of citizens’expression freedom. The judiciary should adhere to prohibit the view of analogical interpretation, for the Criminal Law Amendment (Ⅸ) has regulate the false information on the network to make the relevant provisions, to prevent Criminal Law Amendment (Ⅸ)’s useness.