On The Normative Limitation,judicial Application And Legislative Route Of The Crime Of Disrupting Production

In recent years,judicial precedents on the crime of disrupting production and operation have increased year by year,and the controversial issues in practice have aroused the attention of theorists on the crime of disrupting production and operation.Nevertheless,the theoretical input is still not proportional to the practical demand,and it is mostly limited to the discussion of hot cases,and lacks an overall view of the crime of sabotaging production and operation.Therefore,this article attempts to conduct a comprehensive study and discussion on the crime of sabotaging production and operation.This article is mainly divided into the following three parts:The content of the first chapter focuses on the constitutional elements of the crime of sabotaging production and operation,and aims to give a proper explanation.First of all,this article defines the legal benefit of the crime of sabotaging production and operation as the property benefit of production and operation.Since the future benefit is not realistic and certain,it cannot be regarded as the legal benefit of this crime.Secondly,based on this legal interest,this article explains in detail the content of the objective constituent elements: “other methods” should be interpreted as methods that can cause significant direct detriment to the economic interests of production and operation;for “destroying production and operation”,"Destruction" is not limited to physical destruction,but also includes influence,interference and nuisance."Production and operation" refers to all activities that can contain economic benefits.Finally,this article believes that "retaliation or other personal purposes" should be regarded as the subjective elements of this crime;for the determination of "other personal purposes",this article advocates the use of rights to exercise the principle of impunity,if the perpetrator thinks he is exercising his rights,objectively If there is the appearance of rights in the above,and there is no situation of abuse of rights,it can be subjectively convicted.The content of the second chapter focuses on the judicial application of the crime of undermining production and operation.By summarizing and sorting out existing cases,the logic of identifying crimes and dividing crimes in judicial practice is refined,and three types of application problems that are worth noting in practice are discovered.The first is the "marginalization" of subjective elements.This article advocates attaching importance to the identification of subjective elements in order to practice the principle of accountability.Specifically,when it comes to the issue of burden of proof for "venting anger,retaliation or other personal purposes",appropriate presumption strategies can be adopted,and at the same time,The defendant is given the right to rebut the testimony and overturn;the second is that the behavior is "pocketized",which can easily develop into a conviction logic that only depends on the result.In this regard,this article advocates corrections in terms of interpretation methods and interpretation concepts.In terms of interpretation methods,“other methods ” should be strictly limited to conform to similar interpretation principles;in terms of interpretation concepts,the principle of legally prescribed crimes and punishments should be followed to avoid the erosion of the resulting conviction thinking;the third is the “absoluteization” of criminal boundaries,this article Taking this crime,the crime of deliberately destroying property,and the crime of creating disturbances as examples,it is pointed out that the principle of criminal competition should be fully used to realize the full evaluation of criminal behavior.The content of the third chapter is mainly to elaborate on the future fate of the crime of sabotaging production and operation,that is,whether the current provisions should be revised,and how should it be revised.Regarding the question of whether it should be revised,the main reason for this article ’ s positive attitude is that the interpretation theory has irreparable logical flaws and the practical risk of turning this crime into a pocket crime,and the legislative theory has become a trend worldwide.trending.Regarding the question of how to amend,this article lists several amendments and ideas: the addition of the crime of disrupting business lacks a localized contextual basis;the addition of the crime of disrupting the credit evaluation of the online market lacks typology,and it is difficult to make other types of disruptive behaviors of production and operation.Respond;deleting the type of exemplified behavior before "venting anger or retaliation or other personal purposes" or "other methods" will result in loss of clarity and aggravation of objective incriminating suspicion.This article advocates that while adjusting the crime of sabotaging production and business operations to Chapter 3,Section 8 to clarify the legal benefits,the specific provisions are stated as follows: In any of the following circumstances,those who disrupt production and business activities shall be sentenced to not more than three years of fixed-term imprisonment,criminal detention,or surveillance If the circumstances are serious,they shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years and not more than seven years:(1)Violence,threatening personnel involved in production and operation;(2)Destroying,hiding,intercepting,or transferring raw materials,tools,and products necessary for production and operation;(3)Using computer technology to hinder the normal operation of products or services provided by others.