A Study On The Judicial Interpretation Of "Partial Tampering" False Litigation

Since the establishment of the crime of false litigation in the Ninth Amendment to the Criminal Law,there have been different views in the theoretical field as to whether "partial tampering" false litigation can constitute a crime of false litigation.Subsequently,the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court promulgated the laws of interpretation.Article 7 of the judicial interpretation stipulates that "falsifying" the facts of a case to defraud judicial documents is not punishable as a crime of false litigation.Based on the analysis of the degree of "tampering",it can be divided into "total tampering" and "partial tampering",while the qualifier for facts in the original criminal law is "falsification","In the crime of false litigation,it has the right to interpret it as fabricating the facts of the case out of thin air,that is,if the materials used in civil litigation are all false,this meaning coincides with" total tampering ",indicating that the object pointed to in Article 7 of the judicial interpretation," tampering ",should not include" total tampering ",but can only be limited to" partial tampering "for research and discussion.",Therefore,it is necessary to conduct a study on the problems existing in judicial practice in the judicial interpretation of "partial tampering and modification" false litigation acts.In the first part,the existing problems are further demonstrated in combination with cases and judicial interpretation regulations,and analyzed in combination with current theoretical and academic research.It can be roughly divided into "doubts about the internal self-consistency of judicial interpretation organs","insufficient theoretical evidence of external judicial interpretation",and "weak adaptability of judicial interpretation to a given direction of conviction".The second part analyzes the causes of the judicial interpretation problems of "partial tampering and modification" false litigation behavior,which can be summarized as follows: "The dual separation of judicial interpretation powers leads to poor internal communication","The lack of rationality in judicial interpretation limits leads to incomplete word meaning","There is a misunderstanding of the legislative intent in judicial interpretation",and "The judicial interpretation improperly distinguishes the boundary between this crime and that crime.".In the third part,after analyzing the causes,two solutions are proposed to properly solve the problem.One is to strengthen the theoretical interpretation of relevant provisions in judicial interpretation,including limiting the interpretation of the term "tampering" in judicial interpretation and clarifying that the object of judicial interpretation is non critical facts;Second,the two high authorities have the right to interpret differences in judicial interpretation in a unified manner,including adopting substantive and expansionary interpretations of the meaning of "fabrication" and modifying judicial interpretation provisions to cover "partial tampering".