| Any crime is inseparable from a certain "time and space", but not any of the "space" has been concerned about the Criminal Law. In fact, in most of the provisions of criminal law, there is little guilt or upgraded conditions of legal sentence mentions "time" or "place". This is due to the typed legislative technique and precise and concise legislative requirements. However, the word "public place" has appeared in criminal law many times, such a "standard feature" is thought-provoking.This paper is divided into three chapters to conduct a comprehensive combing and discussion of "public places". The first chapter proposed the concept of "public places" in criminal law, which makes us confused.The second chapter combs with the relevant provisions of "public places", which laid the premise for the literal interpretation and interpretation system. The third chapter is the main part of this paper. Through proper interpretation way, it specified reasonable interpretation of the rules for the "public places" in Criminal law. This paper attempted a kind of "interpretation", and this "interpretation" is in absolute compliance with the existing "Criminal Law". It is just help us "know" the Criminal Law, not "create" criminal law.In addition, this paper research related judicial cases as a study material.The first chapter includes an overview of "public places" related offenses and a classification of these related offenses. The first part of this chapter lists the relatedcharges of "public places" in Criminal Law and their crime constitution with a combination of graphics and text, and analysis in detail some special charges.The second part of this chapter makes two different classifications for above all charges from two different points of view.The second chapter asks jurisprudence questions about "public places" in criminal law, including the following two main questions: why "public places" exists in the crime constitution of some crimes? Why crimes of "public places" exist only in those crimes’ constitution? For the previous question, this paper argues that the "public places" are often related to "public security", the need to maintain the "public order", the existence of a specific "public morality", and may have an "amplification effect". For the latter question, this paper presents three reasons: "nature of certain acts can only take place in the ‘public places’, nature of certain acts cannot happen in the ‘public places’, most distinguishing behavior has occurred in the ‘public places’ does not make sense." Based on such analysis, aiming to bring the judicial interpretation of the disputed issue- the relationship between "public places" and "pick-pocketing" behavior were discussed.The third chapter is the core research content of this paper. In the "public places" judicial cognizance, "public" is the only focus, which means "public life" instead of "public administration". Compared with the pursuit of precise definition of "public places", it is more important to explore the judgment rules of "public places" in the judicial judgment. "Not specific to most people" is the most intuitive judgment angle(form of judgment). From a visual perspective, public places should be a place for the majority of people who are not specific to have a public life. At the same time, it only needs to have this function, there is no need to have the reality that most people are in the public life. And "the general idea of society" is the core point of judgment(in essence). "Public life" is closely related to the concept of "general social concept ",which must be fully taken into account in the judgment. In the fuzzy boundary of "public places", we need to consider the way by which the specific social interestsmay be infringed, which means, "public life" does not require to be involved in the way of "being in one". Correspondingly, the relationship between "private place" and "public places" is not distinct from each other. Under the effect of "general social concept", the relationship between them is complicated. |
PDF Full Text Request