Public Affairs In Criminal Law

Engagement in the public affairs, a essential attribution of national staff, is a important target for definiting national staff in our country’s criminal law and relevant legislation interpretation. But the criminal law has not define the "public affair" and most judicial interpretation aim at the concrete national staff, so this law can not be generally applied to the new situations happening in our practice. So how to differentiate the national staff from the staff in state organ have always been the subject of much debate. This essay try to interprets the definition of public affair in the view of criminal law for solving the problem.The preface explores the perplexity of related theory and disputing problems in judicial practice about the target of the public affairs, introduces the motive of the author, and the train of thought of solving the problem. What bring the bewilderment to the judicial practice is the poverty of accurate definition for the meaning of public affairs. In addition, the concept of public service is abstract and the concerning area is complexity. Therefore in order to enrich our criminal theory, perfect the criminal legislation and guide the judicial practice, it is necessary to make a systematical and deep research on it.In the first part, writer sums up the characteristics and the way of taking public affairs. The essay points out that public affair has functions, management, post and legitimate. We may get a conclusion in accordance to the category of public administration:public administration is a kind of administrating practice carried by certain person under the permission of government and law; and the right for this practice is entitled through direct or indirect ways.In the second part, the more important than important sector, introduces the connotation and epitaxial of public affair and the difference between public affair with similar concept. In author’s opinion, we should not differentiate the national staff from the staff in state organ through the agency’s nature. The author thinked that government public affair and society public affair make up the connotation of public affair in the view of administrative law. We should be careful to define epitaxial of public affair because of humility. So author interprets epitaxi through power and publicity. What the essay regard is that the collective affair should be excluded from the epitaxi of public affairs. Finally, the author analyzes the conception of post, service, business and private service.In the third part, the author generalizes the property of public affair through describing the public affair’s feature and the way of acquiring qualification. The essay point out that public affair has functions, management, post and legitimacy. We may get a conclusion in accordance to the category of public administration:public administration is a kind of administrating practice carried by certain person under the permission of government and law; and the right for this practice is entitled through direct or indirect ways.In the fourth part of the essay, the author, after the comparison and analysis of the three types of theories, makes a point that the existence of the crime of disrupting public service must be under the premise of the legitimate of the service. In addition, the author gives standard to judge the legitimate of public service according to the theory of "fact plus form". Furthermore, the author considers that the judgment depends on the objective assessment from the court rather than the subjective one from the civil servants.Finally, the essay points out several difficult problems in public affairs.