High Dejiang Abuse Of Power Case

"Crime of abuse of authority" was isolated from "Crime of neglect of duty" when Criminal law being revised in 1997. Because there is a lot of something in common in such aspects as subject and object in " Crime of abuse of authority" and "Crime of neglect of duty", there is some difference about affirmation of this guilty in the judicial practice. This text have carried on serious research to constitutive elements of "Crime of abuse of authority" through a concrete case, the emphasis lies in subject, objective respect and subjective issue of "Crime of abuse of authority". In order to through concrete analysis of case, promote, theoretical research of "Crime of abuse of authority" serve for judicial practice better.This text is divided into four parts.Part one have introduced the brief and details of the case.Gaodejiang was deputy director and president of trade union of trade union of original Sichuan Building committee. Because he gave its subsidiary Sichuan building industry a reply "about agree pilot work of Sichuan sea great market to sell exhibition location "in violation of rules and regulations, caused its subsidiary to utilize it to defraud the public fund more than 13 million yuan, and leaded to the fact the public appealed for help collectively many times, has influenced the working order of the government office and social stability seriously, he was sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment for three years for "Crime of abuse of authority" by the court.Part two Have summed up the dispute focus of the case.The focus of the case mainly lies in how to understand the subject, objective respect and subjective respect of "Crime of abuse of authority".Part three Have summarized the different opinions of both sides of the accuser and the accused.Procurator fiscal and court asserted Gaodejiang's behavior of " give a written reply " in violation of rules and regulations, accord with, composition respects of "Crime of abuse of authority" , and he committed "Crime of abuse of authority". Gaodejiang and counsel did not think his behavior accord with composition respects of "Crime of abuse of authority" and he did not commit "Crime of abuse of authority".Part four through the analysis of composition respects of "Crime of abuse of authority", draw a conclusion that this case committed "Crime of abuse of authority".This part includes the content of three respects: 1, Through the analysis to state personnel's connotation, characteristic and range, affirmed that Gaodejiang accords with subject characteristic of "Crime of abuse of authority". This text thinks, the essential characteristic of the state personnel is engaged in the public affair, its range includes: Civil servant, the personnel engaged in public affair in the organization of the administrative power in accordance with the law, the personnel engaged in public affair in trust and other not listed in government office but engaged in public affair in state organ .2,Through analysis to abusing behavior, great loss and "cause and effect"between abusing behavior and great loss , affirmed Gaodejiang 's behavior accords with characteristic of objective respect of "Crime of abuse of authority" . This text think, the abusing behavior includes three kinds of situation: Surmount the functions and powers, exercise authority intentionally and incorrectly and give up the duty on purpose; While analyzing the causality between the abusing behavior and great loss, should affirm the existence of the accidental causality of criminal law. 3,Through analysis to crime intention, affirmed Gaodejiang's behavior accords with the characteristic of the subjective respect of "Crime of abuse of authority". This text think, the subjective respect of "Crime of abuse of authority" show as on purpose, including direct intention and indirect intention. The conclusion that Gaodejiang committed "Crime of abuse of authority" was drawn finally.