Qualitative Research About The Cuckold Claim Property From The Home-wrecker

It is understandable to exercise rights to the other party based on a certain right.However,in real life,the perpetrator always takes an overly aggressive approach to defending his rights.In the field of criminal law,some commentators believe that if the mode of exercise is unreasonable,it should be regarded as an act of extortion and thus use the criminal law to regulate it.Some commentators also believe that the behavior of the perpetrator should not be based on the crime of extortion because it is defending its own rights and as long as it is related to its own right to be harmed.Therefore,there are different views on the boundaries between the exercise of rights and extortion.This article takes Tian’s extortion case as an example to analyze the behavior of the cuckold to ask the home-wrecker to interfere with the marriage.Starting from the constitution of crime,it analyzes the subjective and objective aspects of the behavior of the actor,and expounds the legitimacy premise of the actor’s behavior and the reasons that should not be regulated by the criminal law.This article is divided into four parts.The first part introduces the case of Tian’s extortion case,in which the perpetrator raped the home-wrecker and claimed property from her.It also summarizes the disagreements and controversial focus on the case,and introduces the specific content to be discussed in this article.The second part is the legal analysis.This part discusses the boundary between the exercise of rights and the crime of extortion and the rights of the perpetrators.In the boundary between the exercise of rights and extortion,we first sorted out the analysis of the boundaries between the two systems of the Anglo-American legal system and the civil law system,and then sorted out our domestic views on the boundaries between the two.After that,the viewpoint held in this paper is given,that is,for the verbal extortion of speech type,comprehensive judgment is made from both subjective and objective aspects.In the objective aspect,it is necessary to conduct a specific analysis of the behavior of the actor.If the actor’s means is reasonable and the other party is willing to deliver the property,then it does not constitute a threat.On the subjective side,it is not possible to determine the illegal possession of the perpetrator because the amount of the property the actor asked.In the discussion of the part of the rights of the perpetrators,the author mainly clarifies the legitimacy of the actor’s claim to the other party and gives the basis for the claimant’s claim.The third part is the conclusion of this case.Since the case involves a total of three financial actions,it is necessary to conduct a specific analysis for the three situations.Since the background generated by each case is different,the reasons for the conclusions of the three situations are also different,so the conclusions of each case are obtained.For the first time,this article believes that it should be attributed to the exercise of rights and not to sin.For the second time,because of the invalidity of the previous gift contract,the actor’s money is also justified and not guilty.In view of the third act of selling money,this article believes that it is also an act that can be negotiated privately by both parties to the event and does not commit crimes.The fourth part is the summary and enlightenment to this case.Although the perpetrator has the basis of the right of action,because the legal rules are not perfect,it is necessary to strengthen the relevant content of the law.In addition,the exercise of rights will always be linked to extortion,and behind it is the tension between the autonomy of private law and the involvement of public power,so it is necessary to maintain the principle of humility of punishment and avoid unnecessary harm to citizens.