Study On Case Of Li’s Stir-up-trouble

Stir-up-trouble crime has received many controversies in the theoretical field. The concepts "random", "threat", "any damage", and "public" vary from person to person. In practice, a great number of cases were identified as this crime. Therefore, the study on Li’s Stir-up-trouble case has referential significance, especially in dealing with similar cases. According to the criminal law, stir-up-trouble crime has four types:random beating, intimidation, damaging public or private property arbitrarily and making disturbances. If we should recognize the key points of that four types, such as the meaning of "random", "beating", and "vicious offense", "intimidation", "arbitrary", "damage", "making disturbances" and "public places". Based on the facts of the case, Li’s behaviors do not belong to any kinds of four types of Stir-up-trouble crime, namely the case does not constitute the Stir-up-trouble crime, and the court decision was inappropriate. Li’s behaviors both disrupt public affairs and traffic order. Based on the facts of the case and the characteristics of crime constitutions, the case constitutes the crime against public affairs and the crime of organizing a mob to disturb traffic order. To the crime against the public affairs, the main characteristics, such as the object of crime and the objective behaviors for crime, should be clear. To the crime of organizing a mob to disturb traffic order, it’s necessary to make clear its characteristics, such as objective aspects, subjective aspects and the cognizance of ringleader, etc. Owing to the partial coincident relations of the objective behaviors of the crime against public affairs and the crime of organizing a mob to disturb traffic order, both of which include resisting or hindering public official’s duty, so the concurrence of crime has occurred. According to the doctrine of imaginative joinder of offenses, the behaviors of criminals apply to felony. The ringleader only constitutes the crime of organizing a mob to disturb traffic order, and others constitute the crime against public affairs.