On The Judicial Determination Of The Crime Of Bending The Law

This paper takes the case of Tan bending the law as an example, researched on “being aware” and “favoritism” which influence the nature-determining of the crime of bending the law and the difficult issues of “circumstances of aggravations” influencing the measurement of penalty.Besides the introduction, the text is divided into four parts, including more than 20,000 words.The first part is the basic details of the case, including the cause of action, the case introduction and the divergence of opinions. Based on the divergence of opinions of the prosecution & the defense on whether it’s the crime of bending the law or the crime of abuse of authority and whether it’s a circumstances of aggravation, combined with the practical requirements of the case and the key points to distinguish the crime of bending the law from the crime of abuse of authority, the writer summarized three focus issues: First is the determination of the behavior object’s deliberate favoritism “being aware”. Second is the determination of “favoritism” or “practice favoritism”. Third is the determination of “circumstances of aggravation”.The second part is the analysis of the relevant legal principles. First is the analysis of the behavior objects to distinguish the innocence from the guilty. Using the connections and differences of being aware in the specific provisions of criminal law, being aware in the general provisions of criminal law and the meaning & definition of “being aware” in the context of criminal law, the “being aware” calculated crime of bending the law was analyzed. Then, applying the legal status &nature of “favoritism”& “practice favoritism” in the crime of bending the law, the meaning and the theory of whether it includes the favoritism of units and collectives, the conditions of “favoritism” or “practice favoritism” of the crime of bending the law were recognized. Third, using the nature& recognition of circumstances of aggravation and other theories, the issue of how to recognize that the circumstances of the crime of bending the law have exceeded the level of general circumstances and reached serious circumstances was analyzed.The third part is the research conclusions of this case. On the basis of the legal principles analysis in the above part, combined with the concrete case details of Tan, the conclusions of the three focus issues are obtained: First, with the progress in the investigation of the case, Tan has reached the “being aware” level required by the crime of bending the law. Second, Tan doesn’t seem to have the obvious crime motive, which meets the condition of “favoritism”. Third, according to the old applicable judicial explanation, Tan’s crime details are not suitable to be identified as “circumstances of aggravation”.The fourth part is the research enlightenment of this case. Through the researches and analyses of the case of Tan’s crime of bending the law, we can see the relevant difficult points existing in dealing with this kinds of cases in judicial practice and the analytic method. Thus, we can comprehensively, correctly grasp the conditions to constitute the crime of bending the law and the lifting condition of the legal punishment of circumstances of aggravation. The opinion of compounding being awareness and enriching the contents of favoritism was put forward, which aims to unify the scale of law enforcement and resolve all kinds of disputes in practice so as to realize the legislators’ original intention of combating the crime of bending the law and preventing judicial dereliction of duty.