| The protection of forest resources is more and more important these years in our country.This paper,in the form of a case analysis paper,focuses on the controversial issue of a difficult case of deforestation in judicial practice,this paper analyzes the concept and connotation of the crime of deforestation,the characteristics of the Constitution of the crime and the demarcation line between the crime of illegal logging and the crime of illegal logging of state key protected plants,in order to promote the accurate application of the crime of deforestation in judicial practice.In other words,through the different opinions on Liu’s case of deforestation in judicial practice,sum Up the controversial focus: Liu in the application for a forest harvesting permit but not actually obtained the situation has been cut down the purchase of trees,whether it constitutes the crime of deforestation? Liu is not clear in the case of forest boundary,unauthorized organization of workers cut down the other villagers to keep the forest on the mountain,whether it constitutes the crime of illegal logging? Liu has bought Camphor tree felling,is a crime of deforestation,or illegal felling of the state key plant protection crime? How should handle to Liu MOU’s behavior,be from a felonious punishment or several crimes concurrently punish?The object of the crime of deforestation is not simply the system of forest resources protection,but the system of forest resources protection to ensure ecological interests,there is no need to criminalize acts against this system,so the implementation of the crime of deforestation should be limited to be understood as acts against the ecological legal interests and against the forest resources protection system,in this case,although the act of cutting down and buying trees was earlier than the time when the cutting license was granted,it did not violate the ecological legal interests,and Liu’s act did not constitute the crime of deforestation.As far as the subjective aspect of the crime of illegal logging is concerned,in general,the subjective fault type of the crime of intentional crime is limited to direct intent,but in the course of indirect intent,when the other purposes pursued by the actor coincide with the purposes of the crime of intentional crime,it also corresponds to the result that the actor pursued the purpose crime actively,and it also accords with the subjective fault of the crime of illegal logging.In this case,we need to broaden our understanding of the purpose of illegal occupation.Although at that time Liu was not sure that this part of the forest must be owned by others,he knew that it might be others’,and he still organized others to cut it down,it shows that it has the criminal purpose of illegally owning other people’s forest in the process of pursuing the maximum benefit subjectively.Liu’s illegal felling of other people’s trees constitutes not only the crime of illegal felling of trees but also the crime of illegal felling of trees.As it is impossible for the state key protected plants to be allowed to be harvested,the illegal harvesting of the state key plants is in line with the crime of deforestation at the same time,but because the state key protected plants are special trees,therefore,the crime of illegal cutting of state key protected plants and the crime of illegal cutting of trees are the co-occurrence of inclusive and overlapping laws,according to the principle of priority of special laws,the crime of illegal cutting of state key protected plants should be given priority.In this case,Liu’s illegal felling of camphor tree constitutes both the crime of deforestation and the crime of illegal felling of state key protected plants,which should be punished according to the latter.Although Liu’s illegal felling of other people’s trees and illegal felling of bought Camphor trees are the same course of action,they constitute different crimes because they violate different specific legal interests,should be punished in combination with several crimes. |
PDF Full Text Request