| The crime was called "the struggle of the isolated individual against the ruling relationship".However,among all the crimes stipulated in the criminal law,the most direct and typical expression of the tension between the state power and the individual rights of citizens is the crime of obstructing public affairs.It is not easy to carry out social management activities of state organs,which is often in conflict with individual interests.As a result,the number of crimes of obstructing public affairs has been on the rise in recent years.Especially,when there are defects in law enforcement,the establishment of this crime is often denied in practice.At the same time,since there is no uniform and clear stipulation on the status of the legality of official acts in this crime,it is of great value and significance to correctly define this crime whether the law enforcement counterpart’s misunderstanding of the legality of official acts affects the establishment of this crime and how to identify the existence of misunderstanding.However,in the current criminal law of our country,there is no accurate description of the performance of duties according to law,and it is too harsh to identify the legality of the official acts in this crime according to the provisions on legal administration in the administrative law.Therefore,in judicial practice,there are many differences and disputes over the legality and cognizance of official acts,resulting in a high rate of civil disobedience,which not only weakens the public credibility of the government,but also damages the harmony of the society.On this basis,this paper analyzes and discusses the classification and validity identification of defective official acts in criminal law and the related issues of the legality of official acts,and puts forward some Suggestions on judicial countermeasures.At the same time,in the field of traffic law enforcement,obstructing public affairs often involves public security,especially for the last few years,the crime of endangering public security by dangerous means has become increasingly serious,which is particularly important for accurately grasping "public security" and "other dangerous methods".The paper consists of four parts,a total of about 34,000 words.The first part of the basic circumstances of the case,including the cause of the case,brief introduction of the case,different opinions.The second part of the legal issues related to analysis.This part mainly discusses the two problems,one is obstructing public business related issues,including the legitimacy of official behavior of requirement and the judgment standard,defective official classification and decided,official legitimacy in the position in obstructing public business,official behavior legitimacy know wrong judgement method,the "violence" obstructing public business in maximum possible scope;Second,the core connotation of "public safety" and "other dangerous methods" is discussed with emphasis on the related issues of the crime of endangering public security by dangerous methods.When discussing the crime of obstructing public affairs,first of all,the doctrine of compromise can define the legality of public affairs in a more comprehensive way,so as to obtain the requirements of legal public affairs.Since the legality of the official act is the premise of the crime of obstructing the official act,the defense right of the counterpart in law enforcement is mainly aimed at the defective official act.By referring to the relevant theories of domestic and German and Japanese administrative law,the author puts forward that the defective official acts in criminal law can be divided into general defective official acts and major defective official acts,therefore,it can be concluded that for the official acts with general defects,the counterpart cannot exercise the right of defense unless the defects cause realistic and urgent infringement on the legal rights and interests of the counterpart.Second,about the offender legitimacy to know whether the error influence on official behavior crime,the establishment of the problems,mainly depends on official behavior legitimacy in the system position of obstructing public business,through the analysis of several main theories in said factors of constitutive requirements of logic is the most clear,the legitimacy of official behavior of elements is to standardize the constitutive requirements of crime,therefore,to set up deliberately must at the same time to recognize the legality of the official act based on facts and legitimacy itself,on the legitimacy of official behavior of understanding mistakes can hinder the formation of the intentionally,but in order to reduce the constitutive requirements of punishment loophole,in dealing with the practice in recognizing the wrong judgment on the issue of the introduction of "not intentional" and "the layman parallel evaluation theory,namely don’t have to achieve legal professionals in the understanding degree to be precise,as long as,under similar circumstances are usuallyconsidered official action may be legal degree can be.Finally,in the discussion of the object of the crime of obstructing public affairs,the scope of the object of the crime of violence is discussed.In judging whether it constitutes the crime of endangering public security by dangerous means,it mainly involves the analysis of the two core concepts of "public security"and "dangerous method".The third part is the analysis and conclusion of the case.The analysis of the third part is based on the introduction of the first part of the case and the focus of the dispute.Qualitatively speaking,the actor in this case constitutes the crime of obstructing public affairs,not the crime of endangering public security by dangerous means.First,based on the classification of criminal law of defective official acts in the second part of legal analysis,it is concluded that there are general defects in the law enforcement of traffic law enforcement personnel in this case,which does not affect the legality of the whole law enforcement activities,so the actor cannot exercise the right of defense.Secondly,the legality of the official acts is a constitutive element of the code of this crime.But according to the auxiliary theory introduced,we can conclude that there is no cognitive error in the actor,and only take it as the reason to get rid of the crime.Therefore,it establishes the intentional crime of obstructing public affairs.Furthermore,as for the object of violence of the crime of obstructing public affairs,it is concluded through discussion that persons other than law enforcement personnel can be the object of violence of this crime,but there are limitations in purpose and degree.Finally,the behavior of the actor in this case is unlikely to be evaluated as "other dangerous methods",so the crime of endangering public security by dangerous methods is not valid.The fourth part is the enlightenment brought by the case.This part mainly has two enlightenment: first,in the cognizance of the crime of obstructing public service,we should correctly understand the influence of the defective public service act,the wrong recognition of the legality of public service act on the establishment of the crime of obstructing public service,and judge the scope of the object of violence.The second is to avoid the expanded application of the crime of endangering public security by dangerous means,we should judge the "dangerous methods" firstly,and then we judge public security. |
PDF Full Text Request