Research On Stir-up-trouble Crime

This crime is a new offense after the revision of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China(hereinafter referred to as the "Criminal Law"),which is based on the hooligans in the Criminal Code of 1979.In recent years,this crime has a "pocketed" tendency,fuzzy description of the crime to its judicial recognition has brought great obstacles,scholars of the crime of the abolition of the problem also have their own views.This paper,combined with the way of statistical data,sums up the experience and problems of the crime in the process of judicial practice,and tries to find out the crime of provocation in the reality,and analyzes the specific problems in the crime of provocation and the specific problems in the judicial determination.Judicial application of the problem.The first part of this article describes the concept of this crime,the history of legislation,the situation of foreign legislation and the dispute.The second part of this article has carried on the concrete analysis to the constituent elements of this crime,mainly for the following points: object,combined with single object and complex object model,I believe that should apply a single object model,specifically for social public order.The objective aspect of this crime is mainly manifested as the four types of behavior stipulated in Article 293 of the Criminal Law,and focuses on the analysis of the "arbitrary assault type","burglary type" and "information network type" The problem of the crime.The subjective aspect of this crime can be summed up as "nothing wrong" and "borrowing nothing" two types.In the process of judicial determination of this crime,the subjective purpose of crime and the motive of criminal motive have been controversial,but in recent years,these features have been gradually diluted,to the general intention of close,which can easily lead to this crime and similar crimes Difficult to distinguish between the situation.The third part of this article focuses on the analysis of the reality of this crime in the process of judicial identification and combing,the crime of crime in the description of thefour behavioral style of the standard requirements of a common feature is that they are difficult to judge the " Bad " or " serious confusion " of the crime criteria,which has become the main challenge of the crime of provocation crime,and secondly,the crime is similar to the distinction between the crime is also a difficult problem in the judiciary.Therefore,the problem can be divided into two main categories,one is the general law and the crime of the boundaries of the problem,the second is the crime and the boundaries of similar crimes.In particular,the question of the boundary between the "cyberspace" and "the real space" is the problem of the "random" controversy in the "random beating" Criteria for Judging the Conflict of Public Places in Public Places.As the social public order as a more abstract object,it is difficult to grasp,but too quantified legislative provisions will lead to a more bad situation,therefore,from the judicial practice to find a solution is the right direction.At the end of this paper,the author analyzes and puts forward the specific problems in the judicial judgment of the crime of provocation.Corresponding to the real problem,the fourth part of this article is also divided into two sections to explain,the first section from the "bad plot" of the judicial identification of the crime and the general law of the boundaries of the problem.Which analyzes the subjective factors influencing the crime,and puts forward that it should clarify the qualitative and quantitative criteria of the "information network type" judicial identification and clear the "standard of serious confusion in the order of public places".In addition,the addition of two small questions,that is,"multiple random assault on others" and "collect others" type of identification standards.Finally,the distinction between the crime and the crime of the main crime of the crime of intentional injury,the distinction between insulting a detailed analysis to resolve the confusion in the judiciary.