Criminal Boundary Of Assembly Behavior

When a citizen thinks his interests are damaged but cannot be properly solved by relevant departments or units,he will choose to voluntarily assemble to express his demands in order to safeguard his or his collective interests.This is the proper meaning of freedom of assembly.But in this process,because of a large number of people and other reasons,the situation of disturbing the social order is inevitable sometimes.In the face of such assembly cases of safeguarding right,which behaviors are extreme or improper,the courts adopt different standards in different cases of the same type in determining whether they constitute crimes or not and if they constitute crimes,which accusation will be adopted.This situation has seriously affected the authority of the judicial trial,and the ordinary citizens are confused when they look up and understand the judgments of such cases.Therefore,it is imperative to clarify the criminal boundary of the assembly behavior.There are four parts in this paper except the introduction,a total of 22000 words:The first part is the brief introduction of the case.This part contains following aspects:Firstly,the cause of action;secondly,the details of the case.Introduce the details of assembling crowd to disturb social order of Du Yonglei and Lee Kangjun briefly;thirdly,disagreement.One side believes that the two defendants get together to disturb the social order,the circumstances are serious,and the production can not be carried out.The other side believes that the defendants was involved in a sit-in strike to express their appeal for legitimate purpose.Although the way is inappropriate,their behaviors are in line with the characteristics of disturbing the social order,and it is not a severe case and does not constitute a crime.Fourthly,the focus of the case.According to the analysis of disagreement,sum up the focus of the case.What many people gather sit-in leads to the loss of the vehicle is in line with assembly behavior or meet the constituent elements of the crime of assembling crowd to disturb social order.In the process of assembly,whether someone shouts slogans and participates in the whole process belongs to the ringleader or active participant in the crime of the crowd or not.The second part is the legal analysis of the case-related legal issues.Firstly,A substantive understanding of assembly behavior by the understanding of it and the identification of legitimacy boundaries.The assembly behavior is a non-permanent activity for the peaceful express of rights and willingness of more than three people in an open-airpublic place.Secondly,through a comparative analysis of the purpose of assembly behavior and assembling crowd to disturb social order crime,it is clear that the purpose of assembly behavior cannot be easily treated as a crime because of its legitimacy.Thirdly,assembly behavior due to a large number often leads to disturbing social order,but constitute the crime of assembling crowd to disturb social order in addition to meet the objective behavior but also must meet following three necessary conditions: severe case,resulting in work,production,business and teaching,scientific research and medical treatment to suspend and serious loss.Fourthly,the subject of responsibility for this crime is the ringleader and active participant.The ringleader is the subject that have a dominant role in the criminal process and lead the entire crime.Active participants subjectively take a positive attitude,hope or indulge in the occurrence of endangerment results,objectively proactively implement specific harmful acts or lead to the occurrence of severe consequences.Fifthly,through comparative analysis,there are four differences between the crime of assembling crowd to disturb social order and the crime of disrupting production and operation: violation of object,objective aspect,subject of responsibility and motive of crime.And there are three differences between the crime of assembling crowd to disturb social order and the crime of illegal assembly,parade and demonstration: violation of object,objective aspect and subject of responsibility.The third part is analysis and conclusion of the case.According to the legal analysis,Du Yonglei is not a ringleader and Li Kangjun is not an active participant.The actions of the two defendants do not constitute the crime of assembling crowd to disturb social order,but also do not constitute other crimes,it should be assembly behavior.The fourth part is the enlightenment of this case.Handle such events should be prudent and rapid,specific measures including: Improve the case guidance system,establish the guiding case of assembly behavior;Formulate and promulgate clearer judicial interpretations to clarify the boundaries between crime and assembly;Play the role of government,coordinate and resolve disputes actively;Enterprises need to improve the ability to resolve disputes.