Research On Judicial Application Of Crime Of Helping Information Cybercrime

With the rapid development of the Internet,some crimes of using the Internet for fraud are becoming more and more,and the behavioral expressions are becoming more and more complicated,such as using fake base stations to send fraud information,fraudulent QR codes,and so on.It can be described as a wide variety.It cannot be ignored that cases of helping others to use the Internet to commit crimes frequently occur.The academic circles have disputed the nature of the criminal law provisions on helping criminal activities of information cybercrime.Most scholars believe that Article 287 bis of the Criminal Law is to help criminals.Some scholars have different opinions.For example,Professor Zhang Mingkai believes that Article 287 bis of the Criminal Law does not stipulate the crime of independence,but belongs to the rules of sentencing.On the other hand,due to the deviation of the judicial practice from the understanding of Article 287 bis of the Criminal Law,there are differences in application in practice.The amendments to the Criminal Law Amendment(9)(hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Law 9)can increase the effectiveness of the crime of cybercrime activities,etc.,which can be used to punish Internet crimes.This is a question worth discussing.In this article,the author conducts a comparative study of the three controversial cases of “Xin’s case”,and analyzes the relevant judicial interpretations,and summarizes the controversy focus from the first and second judgments of the court.And the problem,combined with the views of relevant experts to analyze the focus of the issue.This article is roughly divided into three parts to analyze the problem:The first chapter expounds three typical cases of crimes of helping information cybercrime in judicial practice(“Xin’s case”,“Cao’s case”,“Han’ case”),and the disputes in the case are summarized as follows: First,the crime of this crime is identified;second,through the “Cao’s case” and the first Comparing the cases,summarizing whether the penalty of this crime is lighter and whether the penalty setting is reasonable;the third is to compare and analyze the above three cases,how to deal with this crime and the crime of fraud and other related crimes and many more.The second chapter mainly analyzes three cases,and summarizes the controversial issues in the court’s judgment as follows: First,the problems in helping the conviction of criminal activities of information cybercrime,mainly as the subjective aspect of this crime is “knowing others” It is difficult to identify the “knowing” of using the information network to commit crimes.The expression of this crime is ambiguous,and the standard of “serious circumstances” is not clear.Second,the penalty set by this crime is unscientific,and the penalties of this crime are prominent.It is lighter;the third is how to deal with this issue more reasonably when competing with the crime of fraud and fraud.It is highlighted that the judicial application of this crime and the crime of fraud is not scientific,and the judicial operation of this crime is weak and so on.The third chapter is mainly to give suggestions after analyzing the existing disputes,that is,to propose solutions and suggestions for the problems in the judicial application of the crime of helping information cybercrime.The first is how to convict the crime of helping information cybercrime,that is,to reasonably identify the “knowing” of this crime,to correctly understand the behavior of this crime,to clarify the “serious circumstances” legal standards;the second is to help the crime of information cybercrime For reasonable sentencing,that is,aggravating the statutory penalty for this crime,increasing the type of penalty for this crime,that is,increasing other types of punishment such as qualification punishment;the third is to scientifically deal with the issue of co-ordination of this crime and related crimes,and formulate a solution to judicial application.Judicial interpretation of the puzzle.