Research On The Model Of Criminal Responsibility Of Network Service Providers

As the main body of network society operation,network service providers play an important role in certain network crimes.With the development of information technology,the criminal behavior of network service providers presents new characteristics such as great harm,high independence,and strong offense.In response,criminal legislation and judicial interpretations have made institutional responses.However,cybercrime is changing with each passing day.In order to maintain its own stability,the criminal law's normative settings are relatively vague,which makes the corresponding criminal liability model have cross-responsibility paths,unclear applicable boundaries,and chaotic regulatory space.In order to prevent duplication of legislation or weak regulation,it is necessary to explore the corresponding liability models of various laws and regulations,on the basis of clarifying the specific application requirements of each crime,clarify the logical connection between each crime,and analyze the blame approach of the network service provider,So as to solve the dilemma of collaboration between various responsibility models.This article uses case analysis method,on the basis of combing legislation,judicial and related practical cases,it is divided into five chapters,respectively discusses the attribution path,applicable dilemma,internal requirements and external integration issues of the network service provider's criminal liability model.Specifically: The chapter 1 focuses on the controversy of the blame path of network service providers: Controversy one is the main concept of network service providers,controversy two is the behavioral attribute of one of Article 286 of the Criminal Law,controversy three is the Criminal Law Article bis of the form of liability.By grasping the essence of the controversy,the following conclusions are drawn: the network service provider is a whole concept,including any subject that provides network services;one of the 286 articles is an offender who commits an inaction;and the second article 287 is an assisting criminal who establishes a special penalty.Use this to rationalize the network service provider's responsibility model: one is the individual liability model,including two modes of action and inaction;the second is the joint liability model,including the traditional co-offender,the co-offender who is committing the offense and the help offender with an independent legal punishment Three modes.The chapter 2 discusses the application difficulties of the network service provider's criminal liability model,which is manifested as: divergent legislative theories,ambiguous semantics of the laws,and overlapping regulatory scopes.In theory,it is necessary to discuss whether "one-sided help behavior" can be reduced to a joint crime,and whether "neutral help behavior" can be punished;semantically,it is still to be clear that "duty","knowledge","help",and "crime" in each model And the connotation of "serious plot";in application,it is urgent to clarify the applicable space of each model,on this basis,explore the regulatory boundaries and optimize the path of blame.Chapters 3 and 4 clarify the specific application requirements of each responsibility model,focusing on the understanding of the normative content on the basis of the law in accordance with Article 286 1 and Article 287 2 of the Criminal Law.One of Article 286 needs to clarify the "obligation content","three pairs of relations under administrative orders" and "serious plot boundaries".Article 287 bis needs to clarify the four key elements of "knowledge","crime","help" and "serious circumstances".Chapter 5 summarizes the applicable space of each responsibility model,draws on foreign legal norms and judicial practice,and summarizes the optimization path of the network service provider's responsibility model.One is to distinguish between joint crimes and 287 bis from the subjective elements and the result elements,the second is to distinguish the proposed principal offenders from 287 bis from the "whether or not to depart from the complicity of the accomplice",and the third is to divide the 286 from the subjective stage and the legal expectation boundary One and 287 bis.