Research On Criminal Liability Of The Cyber-related Omission As Participation Behavior

The spread of criminal objects from computer information systems to network information has led to a large number of cybercrimes,and the cyber-related omission as participation behavior has accelerated the spread of cybercrime information,endangering network security.Criminal accountability for the cyber-related omission as participation behavior is extremely important for maintaining normal network order.This article is based on the judicial documents of the type of cybercrime,analyzes the behavioral characteristics of the cyber-related omission as participation behavior,analyzes the mode of criminal liability,and proposes improvement measures for liability based on judicial cases.In addition to the introduction and conclusion,this paper consists of four parts:The first part clarifies the value of criminal liability for the cyber-related omission as participation behavior.The criminal attribution of the cyber-related omission as participation behavior can block the spread of criminal information,curb network crime,and effectively respond to the transformation of the infringement of legal interests by the cyber-related omission as participation behavior from indirect to direct,and the role in joint crime from behavior to main behavior,enriching the ways of inaction behavior and improving the identification of criminal responsibility.The second part analyzes eight types of behavior combinations and subjective and objective elements,categorizing network non participation as a joint crime and an independent conviction mode of behavior normalization,and analyzing the differences and connections between the two modes in attribution.The third part combines the legislative and judicial status of the cyber-related omission as participation behavior in criminal liability,and concludes that there are shortcomings in the participation of network inaction in criminal liability,such as unclear obligation content,lack of judgment on the conditions and degree of obligation fulfillment,and lack of recognition of silence in the means of communication.The fourth part proposes five suggestions for improvement in addressing the shortcomings of online inaction in criminal accountability.Firstly,classify individual online users into three types based on their purposes and clarify the scope of obligations for different types of users;Secondly,fix the platform’s obligations as work procedures;Thirdly,establish pre conditions for supervising the performance of obligations;Fourthly,incorporate the contact information of criminal intent into the subjective element judgment;Fifth,the combination of silence and instigation should be recognized as knowing.