An Analysis Of The Crime Of Disrupting Public Service During The National Government

In the traditional legal system of China,there is no provision for the crime of obstructing public affairs.In the late Qing Dynasty and the early Republic of China,the crime of obstructing public affairs was added to the sub-rules of the "Imperial Qing Dynasty Criminal Law" to punish the behavior of obstructing public officials from performing their official duties in accordance with the law.The Beijing government inherited the previous Qing criminal law draft,further refined the conviction and sentencing part,and applied the provisions of the crime of obstructing public affairs in judicial trials.During the period of the Nanjing Nationalist Government,under the influence of the idea of separation of powers,a clause on the crime of obstructing examinations was added to the crime of obstructing public affairs to expand the scope of application of the clause.The Wuhan Municipal Archives and the Hubei Provincial Archives have about 150 archives related to obstructing public affairs,including the cause of the case,the accusation,the reason for the revision of the judgment,and the result of the judgment.In the dynamic operation process of the case,criminal acts include openly insulting public servants,injuring public servants,and destroying civil servants’ official documents.Judging from the subject of the accusation,it includes the official suing the people and the official suing the official,that is,a public official sues the public for obstructing public affairs,or a public official sues other public officials for obstructing public affairs.Judging from the results of the cases,in the first-instance cases,the main types of non-prosecution and acquittals were found guilty and sentenced to a heavier sentence;Rejection,the appeal is illegal and the ruling is rejected.The judicial organs of Hubei Province handle cases of obstruction of public affairs,reflecting the application of local justice to national regulations.The conviction of the case of obstructing public affairs is more cautious,and the criminal evidence is not enough to acquit the public.When the court hears the case of obstructing public affairs,it pays attention to the identity of the public servant.The suspect was acquitted from the point of view of illegal official duties,and the conditions for conviction were strictly controlled.At the same time,in the court trial,combined with the criminal law theory,it is more reasonable to determine the number of crimes of obstructing public affairs,and taking behavior theory as the standard,the punishment for simple crimes of obstructing public affairs is lighter.Imagine cooperating offenders.If the case coexists with insulting public servants and beating public servants,choose a heavier punishment.An implicated offender who commits multiple crimes at the same time due to the method or result of the crime shall be punished from the first level.Continuing offenders convict the criminal process as a whole.When multiple crimes are combined and punished,aggravation of restrictions shall be adopted in the punishment,such as the simultaneous punishment of the crime of obstructing public affairs and the crime of gambling.When sentencing,the punishment for minor cases is lighter,and the punishment for serious cases is heavier.The court will reconcile the contradiction between public rights and private rights during trial.The original intention of the legislation is to protect public power from being infringed.When the court hears cases of minor obstruction of public affairs,the court usually imposes a lighter punishment.The combination of punishment and education helps criminals to return to society in the future.Through the sorting out of the law of the crime of obstructing public affairs and the comprehensive analysis of the cases of obstructing public affairs in Hubei Province,the positive aspects of the judicial organs of Hubei Province are reflected.First of all,the determination of the number of crimes is more reasonable,which is completely consistent with the number of crimes explored by the criminal law at that time.For example,if you imagine a competing crime to choose a felony,the implicated crime is regarded as one crime,and the time limit for multiple crimes is increased.Secondly,combining the circumstances of statutory sentencing and discretionary sentencing,emphasis is placed on punishment for vicious cases of obstructing public affairs,while minor cases of obstructing public affairs are found to be extenuating,and emphasis is placed on education and reform to bring them back into society.Then,in judicial practice,emphasis is placed on judicial efficiency,and when both parties agree to mediation in a public service case that is slightly obstructed,organize both parties to settle the case to reduce the number of cases that go to court;the court follows the gist of previous precedents and guarantees the freedom of speech of news agencies to comment on official behaviors.It can be used as a reference for China’s criminal litigation diversion system today.However,there are also certain shortcomings,such as the lack of specialization of the investigation and prosecution function,which is not conducive to the independence of the procuratorate;the wrongful interference of the military and judicial organs in judicial trials;the influence of the county magistrate and the county government on the independent trial of cases;the omission of specific provisions in the application of the law.