Research On Characterizing The Exercise Of Rights In A Threatening Manner

In criminal justice practice,evidence is the premise and basis for restoring and determining the facts of a case.The judge must analyze a large number of complicated case file evidences to restore the facts of the case,and convict and sentence the defendant’s behavior based on the case evidence.For a large number of evidence materials,if no systematic and comprehensive analysis is performed,it may lead to deviations in the determination of the facts of the case,which will affect the conviction and sentencing of the defendant.Therefore,we must first carry out a systematic and comprehensive analysis of the whole case evidences,construct a systematic evidence system,and form a complete evidence chain in order to accurately determine the facts of the case and fully convict and sentence the defendant according to law.This article uses the case analysis method.Li’s case is a typical "exercise of rights" extortion case,which is significantly different from the traditional extortion case.In this type of case,because the defendant’s behavior has the appearance characteristics of exercising the right,it is difficult to determine whether the subjective purpose has the purpose of illegal possession and whether the objective means constitutes extortion.The author tries to restore the facts of the case on the basis of a comprehensive analysis of the case evidence,so as to summarize the methods of judging this type of extortion and lawful exercise of rights.Based on the theory that evidence should have evidence power and proof power,the author analyzes the case evidence from evidence power to proof power in turn.The former is intended to determine the legitimacy of the evidence,and the latter analysis includes a comprehensive analysis of the authenticity and relevance of the evidence.Through the analysis of the evidence capacity and probative force of the whole case evidence,the facts found in the case are obtained.From the three aspects of whether the rights exist objectively,whether the purpose is justified and the means are justified,the basis and method of distinguishing extortion and lawful exercise of rights in judicial practice are derived.This article is mainly divided into the following six parts: The first part introduces the basic facts of Li‘s extortion case and summarizes the focus of the dispute.In the second part,a comprehensive analysis is made of the relevant evidence on the leased land,land area,contract conditions,and obstruction of construction behavior that Li requested to sign the "Temporary Land Use Contract",and then determines the facts of the case,and characterizes Li’s request to sign the contract.The third part is a comprehensive analysis of the relevant evidence on the land crops,entrusted relationship,contract conditions,and construction obstruction behaviors that Li’s requested to sign the "Green Miao Compensation Agreement" and characterize Li’s request to sign the contract.In the fourth part,a comprehensive analysis is made on the relevant land evidence of Li’s request for compensation of 10,000 yuan for road repairs,the possibility of misunderstanding,and obstacles to construction activities and characterize Li’s request of 10,000 yuan road repair compensation.The fifth part,combining the analysis of the whole case evidence and related theories,draws the overall conclusion of the case.The sixth part summarizes the three aspects of the basis for determining the actor of the "Exercise Right Type" extortion case: whether the rights exist objectively,whether the purpose is justified,and whether the means are justified.The distinction between "exercise of rights" extortion and "legitimate exercise of rights" should first determine whether the rights exist objectively.Only when the rights exist objectively can they constitute a lawful exercise of rights.In the case of objective existence of rights,it is necessary to further determine whether the purpose and means are justified.Whether the purpose is legitimate can be judged by whether the content of the claimed rights is reasonable,and whether the means are legitimate and otherwise needs to be judged by whether they are equivalent and relevant.Only when the three conditions of objective existence of rights,justification of purpose and justification of means are satisfied at the same time,this act constitutes a lawful exercise of rights.