Intentional Injury(Attempted)in Criminal Law

At present in the theoretical circle of our country whether there is an attempted form of intentional injury and whether it can be convicted and sentenced by intentional injury is controversial only if the above result of minor injury is recognized as accomplished.In the judicial practice,it is more inclined to determine that the crime of intentional injury is only accomplished and does not constitute the division of the crime.In the case of less than minor injury,the "Law on punishment of Public Security Administration" to regulate.However,the fact is that there is no evidence to deny the attempted form of intentional injury in the law.At the same time,denying the attempted form of intentional injury in practice will also lead to many problems.Based on the above reasons,the article takes the case of "Fang Zhouzi being attacked case" as an example,combined with other relevant cases to explain the dilemma of judicial practice in our country.On the basis of this analysis,we analyze the various existing schemes for intentional injury(attempted)incriminating,so as to find the most reasonable solution to the problem.The full text consists of more than 32,000 words,except for the introduction,conclusion and thanks,which are divided into the following four parts:The first part is about the existing and intentional injury in our country(unaccomplished)interpretation of relevant laws and regulations,and case study of intentional injury(unaccomplished)the logic path of the theory explanation that can't be incriminated will not be smooth,the legal rank is not reasonable,the legal interest protection is defective and the conviction and sentencing are unreasonable,and so on.The second part briefly introduces the "atrocity crime" in Japanese criminal law,which leads to the existence of several kinds of intentional injury in the theoretical and practical circles of our country(unaccomplished).the perfect scheme of the problem of incrimination.One is to draw lessons from the Japanese criminal law to set up the crime of atrocity,the behavior is intentional injury behavior,but the result is not to achieve the above lightly injured behavior into this new set of charges.The second is to improve on the basis of the general theory of our country.The main viewpoints of these scholars who advocate improvement basically focus on the subjective behavior of the actor.Although the requirements of subjective intention are slightly different,they all judge whether the act should be considered as intentional injury according to the intention of injury(unaccomplished).In addition,in practice,some judicial workers directly use other charges instead.In the use of alternative charges,the most frequent occurrence of the crime of provoking trouble.The main reason is that the first item of the offence of provocation refers to " beating others at will ".Although there are many ways to solve the problem,these improvements are actually flawed.The third part focuses on the defects of the above views.First of all,on the basis of the existing provisions of the crime of intentional injury in China to improve the point of view is open to question.One of the most fatal flaws is that the scholars who argue for this view have only come to the conclusion and have not explained why what they call "criminal intent" can be used as intentional harm(unaccomplished)the standard of incrimination,while other intentions do not.Secondly,there are still many unsolved problems in Japan's theoretical and practical circles,including the creation of a huge crime and the flaw in the criminal code of atrocities in Japan's criminal law.Secondly,the additional charge project is huge and the defects of the atrocity crime in Japanese criminal law itself have not been resolved,and there is still a dilemma of explanation in the theoretical and practical circles in Japan.Moreover,it is difficult to explain the basis of the establishment of the standard of incrimination established after the improvement.In short,the crime of atrocity will be transplanted into the criminal law of our country.As for the substitution of charges is even more nonsense,we can no doubt will not be completely different from the two charges at will to replace.Are there any similar charges that can be substituted for each other?Part 4th is based on the critique of the third part,by defining the boundary between administrative illegal act and criminal act,explaining the principle of consistency between subjective and objective,and the principle of restraining punishment in criminal law and so on,this paper proves that the existing criminal law and criminal system of our country have not done any harm to intentional injury.The regulations on the form have been basically perfect.There is no need to add charges or improve this final point of view.As long as we carefully analyze our existing laws,concepts and principles,correctly distinguish between concepts related to the crime of intentional injury,and accurately understand the principle of conviction and properly grasp the discretion in practice,in the existing criminal code of our country can solve the problem of intentional attempted injury form,neither need to learn from the legislation of any country,and do not need to add wrong modifi cation to the original incorrect general theory.