The Legal Research Of Lee And Jin Tanking Kickbacks Case

"Kickbacks" has become a common phenomenon in today’s society, frequent occurrence in various fields of commodity trading, especially in the purchase of state-owned units is particularly prominent. Although the law of our country stipulates that "Kickbacks" is a kind of performance of commercial bribery, but at present our country law to "Kickbacks" and not make a clear definition. In this paper, we have chosen the "Kickbacks" case, first to analyze the legal nature of the "Kickbacks", and then discuss some legal issues involved in this case.This paper mainly analyzes the case in the criminal object and subject of crime constitution, specific analysis of the similarities and differences between the crime of embezzlement and the crime of dividing the state-owned assets, analyzes whether the behavior constitutes a crime of bribery or bribery, according to the crime legal principle made Lee, Jin a behavior does not set the crime of corruption, bribery or the crime of unit bribery crime and the establishment of dividing the state-owned assets of the crime of conclusion.The first chapter, to Lee, Jin receiving a " Kickbacks " case are introduced, and sums up different charges disputes caused by this case and a number of controversial legal issues.The second chapter, from the point of view of the law of the case in the case of crime analysis. The definition of the nature of the "Kickbacks" is explored, the nature of the "Kickbacks" in this case is analyzed, and the related concepts of "state assets" are analyzed.In the third chapter, the main body of the crime is analyzed. The distinction between unit crime and individual crime, and the analysis of the unit crime subject in the same time.The fourth chapter, the comparative analysis of the crime of corruption and the crime of dividing the state-owned assets. To distinguish the crime of embezzlement and dividing the state-owned assets subject, objective and subjective elements, clear the subject of crime is to determine the key factor of the two crimes.Finally, by induction, draws the conclusion of the case, and points out the deficiencies of dividing the state-owned assets in legislation, and put forward relevant legislative proposals.