Research On The Standardization Of Conviction And Sentencing For The False Litigation Behavior Of Money Invasion

With the advancement of the rule of law construction,the false lawsuit behavior of committing illegal ACTS in the name of law and using the court as a tool for personal gain has spread rapidly,especially the false lawsuit of property infringement.It seriously infringes upon the judicial order,damages the judicial authority and infringes upon the property rights and interests of others.The regulation of the criminal law of the false action of encroaching on property is a hot topic in the field of theory and practice in China for a long time.After the crime of false lawsuit is put into punishment,the conviction and sentencing of the false lawsuit behavior of money invasion in judicial practice show a variety of conviction and mild punishment.There are some problems,such as inaccurate qualitative analysis,false stipulation of the third paragraph of article 307 of the criminal law and imbalance between crime and punishment.In order to resolve the problems existing in the type of false lawsuit against property,by type of false litigation against property behavior qualitative differences,false lawsuits crimes indictment understanding deviation and the evaluation of the criminal law is not accurate analysis of the three reasons for frequent multiple crimes against property has serious social harmfulness of false litigation accurate of conviction and sentencing of equilibrium,therefore,it provides effective Suggestions for the judicial organs to balance the conviction and punishment of the false litigation of property infringement.This paper adopts the method of empirical research combined with theoretical research,finds out the problems,studies the causes of the problems and makes an in-depth analysis,clarifies the nature of the fraudulent litigation of property infringement,and accurately understands the relationship between the crime of fraudulent litigation and the number of crimes in paragraph 3,so as to put forward Suggestions for standardization.In addition to the introduction and conclusion,the paper is divided into the following three parts:The first part,based on the statistics of the types and distribution of judgment in the cases of false litigation against property,this paper makes an empirical analysis of the conviction and sentencing of false litigation against property in judicial practice.It clearly and intuitively reflects the conviction of the false lawsuit against property infringement in judicial practice.In the vast majority of cases,there is a single identification and single characterization of the false lawsuit against property infringement,involving a total of 11 charges in five chapters of the criminal law.Very few cases are fully evaluated and identified as several crimes,but usually they are convicted in the way of combined punishment of several crimes.Only 1% of cases are convicted of a felony according to the provisions of article 307,paragraph 3 of the criminal law.Therefore,it is found that the inaccuracy of the conviction,the inaccuracy of the third paragraph of article 307 of the criminal law,and the imbalance of the punishment for crimes not worthy of punishment exist in the false lawsuit conviction of property infringement.The second part,on the basis of the analysis of the conviction of the false lawsuit,this paper discusses the deep causes of the conviction of the false lawsuit.To trace the source of its legal theory,to find a practical way to solve the problem.The difference in the nature of the false lawsuit,the deviation in the understanding of the crime of false lawsuit,and the inaccuracy in the criminal evaluation of the false lawsuit are the root of the problem.In theory and practice,there are some disputes about the nature of fraud in the false litigation of property infringement,the legislative provisions are vague,and the judges rarely identify the fraud in accordance with the conventional conservative judgment,but ignore the evaluation of the legal interests of property.Judge based on its focus on legal interpretation,explain the position is different,the analysis of the indictment when choosing denotation and the connotation of the fabricated the dual status of interests relation are very understanding deviation,causes most of the cases not considered false action behavior evaluation law,judicial order or above on a single type of false litigation against property behavior qualitative conviction is inaccurate and led to be unduly punished crimes the result of the imbalance.The difference between the adjudicators on the relationship between the number of crimes of fraudulent litigation against property makes the stipulation of the third paragraph of article 307 of the criminal law falsely set despite the full determination of the number of crimes fails to accurately determine the nature of fraudulent litigation against property.The third part,from the micro and macro aspects,this paper gives some Suggestions on the standard of the conviction of the cases of fraudulent litigation.From the micro perspective,it is mainly to clarify the nature of the false litigation of property infringement,to clarify the independent evaluation of false litigation and to clarify the number of crimes and properly apply the provisions of the third paragraph of article 307-1 of the criminal law.Macroscopic aspect mainly grasps the false lawsuit crime criminal policy,On one hand,uphold the principle of modesty and restraint of criminal law and connect the provisions of civil procedure law;On the other hand,in judicial practice,we should carry out the criminal policy of severely cracking down on punishment according to law to curb the rampant spread of fake lawsuits.Through these solutions,it is hoped to be helpful to the adjudicator's trial,so as to fully apply the third paragraph of article 307 of the criminal law,accurately characterize the fraudulent litigation of property infringement,and achieve the balanced effect of crime and punishment.