Study On Conviction And Sentencing Of High-altitude Throwing Crime

The opinions on the proper trial of high-altitude parabolic and falling object cases in accordance with the law(hereinafter referred to as the opinions)and the amendment to the criminal law of the People’s Republic of China(11)(hereinafter referred to as the amendment to the criminal law)have been implemented successively,breaking the original situation that high-altitude parabolic is mainly regulated by the civil law,and using the criminal law to punish high-altitude parabolic has become the norm in judicial practice.As for the crime of throwing objects at high altitude,there are heated discussions in the theoretical circle,and the relevant cases in practice are also increasing.The conviction and sentencing of high-altitude parabolic has become a new issue and focus of common concern in the theoretical and judicial practice circles.Based on the theory of infringement of legal interests,the three-tier crime constitution theory,the theory of imaginative concurrence and amalgamation,this paper investigates the conviction and sentencing of high-altitude parabolic cases in judicial practice,and finds that there are some specific problems,such as incorrect judgment of the conformity of constituent elements,unreasonable identification of legal interests,incorrect application of charges in imaginative concurrence,and insufficient legitimacy of punishment.To solve the above problems,we should clarify the constituent elements of two crimes: one is the crime of throwing objects at high altitude,in which "building" should be understood in a narrow sense,"other high altitude" should be defined as the relative height of more than 2m(inclusive);"Throwing" should be understood as that the perpetrator deliberately threw a high-altitude parable and used to distinguish falling objects;The definition of "things" must be considered comprehensively,and "people" should not be regarded as "things";If "the circumstances are serious",the specific circumstances should be clarified through judicial interpretation;The subjective psychology of the perpetrator can only be intentional,and the intentional behavior does not represent the hope and laissez faire attitude towards the harmful consequences.Second,the crime of endangering public security by dangerous methods,in which "dangerous methods" have the characteristics of uncontrollable,endangering public security and expanding the scope of harm at any time,which should be used as the judgment standard;"Public safety" refers to the safety of life,health and property of unspecified and most people,and the hazard object and Danger itself are not specific.The legal interests infringed by high-altitude parabolic act include the legal interests protected by high-altitude parabolic crime.The two are not equal.When identifying the legal interests infringed by high-altitude parabolic act,we should adhere to the case identification.When the crime of throwing objects at high altitude coincides with other crimes,the crime with heavier punishment shall be convicted and punished,and all the crimes committed by the perpetrator shall be clarified in the judgment.In order to improve the legitimacy of punishment,we should combine the doctrine of combination and implement the principle of adapting crime,responsibility and punishment;In the case of severe punishment,"multiple implementation" is interpreted as "three or more times within two years".When determining "other serious circumstances",the same interpretation rules are used to judge the homogeneous information.