The Criminal Law Analysis Of “Domain Name Hijacking” In “Traffic Hijacking”

The society that goes to the information age brings new challenges to our criminal law.How to deal with the endless new types of computer cybercrime methods and how to regulate the information network space and realize the era transformation of the criminal law of the information society? Is that traditional criminal law can be applied directly to cyberspace,or is it necessary to reconstruct a new crime system applicable to cyberspace? So far,both in terms of time cost or tell from the criminal law,the only option is to improve and to distinguish the existing provision itself in the computer information system crime,at the same time,through the explanation of keeping pace with the times to enlarge the scope of "criminal law" provisions,make the whole system of criminal law and crime system can be applied to real space,and can be extended to cyberspace.China's “Criminal Law” does not specify the “traffic hijacking” behavior.In the past,the handling of “traffic hijacking”was basically innocent of crimes or civil violations because of the professionalism of the criminal subject and the difficulty in finding evidence.It is difficult to incriminate.In 2013,Qihoo 360 performed noun substitution on Baidu search results and advertised its browser to users.Baidu Company therefore sued the court and the court found that Qihoo 360 constituted unfair competition.In 2015,the Shanghai Pudong New Area People's Court first identified “traffic hijacking” as a criminal act at the judicature layer and identified it as the first criminal case of “traffic hijacking” in China as a crime to destroy computer information systems.With the verdict of the case,the "traffic hijacking" act entered the criminal law's field of vision and caused heated discussion.With the increase of the "traffic hijacking" criminal case,various kinds of voices appeared on the qualitative issue of the act.Therefore,the author believes that it is necessary to carry out detailed legal analysis on the "traffic hijacking" behavior and to discuss in depth the correct understanding and application of various terms of computer cybercrime.Believe this has important practical significance for maintaining Internet security and realizing the transformation of the traditional criminal law in this information age.This paper is divided into the following four parts:The first part is the basic situation of the case.Briefly introduced the basic case of the case,put forward two different disagreement issues,and elaborated different disagreements based on the facts of the case for each disagreement and summarized the focus of the dispute.The second part is the legal analysis of related issues.This section first explained the criminal structure of illegally controlling computer information systems and sabotaging computer information systems.It focused on the analysis of “illegal control behaviors” and“disruptive behaviors ” in objective requirements,and considered that regardless of the degree and manner of actual control,so long as violation of the state's regulations on the security protection of computer information systems,is called “illegal”,and at the same time it enables other people's computer information systems to execute instructions issued by them,essentially constituting “illegal control”.Accurately understanding the boundaries of“illegal control” behavior is the key to clarifying the relationship between the crime of illegally controlling computer information systems and the crime of destroying computer information systems and the applicable principles.Then it conducted a qualitative analysis of the “Domain Name Hijacking” and discussed the issue of “trafficking of hijacked traffic”as a follow-up to “domain name hijacking”.And believed that it can be punished as a plot pattern of computer network crime,without the need for setting another new crime.Finally,we made an in-depth discussion of the common crime problem in this case.We believe that in the joint crimes other than group crimes,the initiators,the organizers,the commanders,and the main implementers of crimes are all the prime culprit.The third part is the conclusion of this case.This part mainly analyzes the behavior of the three defendants in the case on the basis of the foregoing legal analysis.It is found that the three accused all constitute the crime of illegally controlling the computer information system and the crime of destroying the computer information system.This belongs to the situation of the intersection of legal provisions,and according to the principle that the complx law is superior to the simple law,convicting bases on the circumstances in which the circumstances of the illegally controlled computer information system were particularly serious.The fourth part is the enlightenment of this case.The main content of this section is the impressions that the author has produced through the research on the issues related to this case.It is proposed that the understanding of new cybercrime methods should be improved,and the legislation on computer cybercrime should be strengthened to strengthen the protection of computer network security.