An Empirical Study On The Judicial Application Of The Crime Of Refusal To Execute The Judgment And Ruling

As we all know,justice is the last line of defensing citizens' rights and safeguarding the legal order of the country.The defensing line firm or not depends largely on whether the effective judgment of the court can be implemented timely and effective.In order to ensure that the content of the effective judgment of the court can be realized,the state has set up the crime of refusing to execute the judgment and ruling in the criminal law.It has been 23 years since the crime was written into the criminal code of China in 1997.In recent years,the central government has launched the work of "basically solving the difficulties in implementation",and the whole country pays special attention to the implementation.From the point of view of the court,in order to solve the problem of difficult execution,we should actively innovate the work measures,strengthen the execution,and resolve the execution disputes.In many measures to solve the difficulty of execution,the crime of refusing to execute a judgment is a powerful tool to ensure the effective implementation of the work,which embodies the final guarantee function of criminal law.However,there are still many problems to be regulated in practice.In this context,the Supreme People's court,on the basis of full investigation and analysis,issued ? the interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the application of law in the trial of criminal cases of refusing to execute judgments and ruling?.In the judicial practice,the judicial application of the crime of refusing to execute judgment has clear standards and detailed rules.However,there are still some problems that have not been solved effectively in practice.Firstly there is a dispute about whether the outsider can constitute the crime of refusal of execution.Secondly in the objective aspect of crime,there is a dispute on whether the transfer of property constitutes the crime of refusal to execute;there is no specific and clear standard for "capable execution";there are differences in the determination of "capable execution" by courts in different regions;there are logical deviations in the determination,inadequate reasoning in the judgment documents,and there is a risk of expanding interpretation.Thirdly in the subjective aspect of the crime,whether theact of refusing to execute the judgment before the ruling comes into effect constitutes a crime is controversial.Fourthly,in terms of procedure,whether the execution of disciplinary measures is the pre-procedure of the crime of refusing to execute judgment is controversial;the lack of investigation responsibility leads to the difficulty in identifying the case of private prosecution of the crime of refusing to execute judgment.The existence of these problems leads to the disunity of the judgment standard in the application of the crime of refusing to execute the judgment.In this case,it is of great practical and theoretical significance to explore the standards of the crime of refusal of execution,clarify the rules of judicial review and actively respond to the judicial needs.