Research On The Judicial Application Of The Crime Of Infringing Citizens’ Personal Information

With the continuous development of information technology,it has brought us a lot of convenience,but also brought the risk of personal information leakage.In particular,crimes of infringing on citizens’ personal information are increasing,which has serious adverse effects on the safety of citizens’ lives and property and social stability.In light of the current social situation to protect the security of citizens’ personal information,the state has issued relevant laws and judicial interpretations to regulate criminal acts that violate citizens’ personal information,and responded to many disputes encountered in practice.However,in judicial practice,there are still many problems that need to be solved urgently.This article analyzes the problems in the judicial application of the crime of infringing on citizens’ personal information by combing related cases and combining theoretical viewpoints,which mainly includes three aspects.First,“citizens’ personal information” lacks a clear definition.Although the judicial interpretation uses “identification” as the standard to define the scope of citizens’ personal information,the “identification” standard is not clear enough,and there are no specific regulations on the type of information source,resulting in In practice,there are differences in the definition of information types.Second,there is controversy regarding the understanding of the precondition of the crime "violating relevant state regulations." Academia has formed three viewpoints(premises of crimes,constitutional elements of crimes,and blank charges),and the legal and judicial interpretations have not clarified their connotations,leading to differences in the application process.Third,in terms of sentencing.Although the judicial interpretation provides for several situations of "serious circumstances," disputes still arise in practice due to the vagueness of the judicial interpretation.Among them,the rules for determining the amount of information are not uniform,the previous conviction status should not be used as the "serious circumstances" standard,and the method of determining the amount of illegal income is too single are the main aspects.Finally,in the criminal behavior.With the continuous updating of information technology and the diversification of criminal methods,the existing laws and regulations can no longer cover all criminal acts.If it is only included in the category of "illegal acquisition by other means",it will not be compatible with crime and criminal responsibility.In response to the problems in judicial application,the following perfect suggestions are put forward from the theory and practice: First,consider the specific scenarios of information use to standardize the identification standards of identifiability,and appropriately expand the scope of citizens’ personal information.The second is to restrict the interpretation of "violation of relevant national regulations",and its scope does not include departmental rules and local regulations.The third is to standardize the relevant factors for the determination of "serious circumstances." First,it is necessary to optimize the rules for determining the amount of information,breaking the purely quantitative incriminating standard;second,to clarify the types of information sources to provide a more accurate basis for sentencing for judicial practice.Finally,change the single identification mode of illegal income and standardize the identification standards.The fourth is to expand the methods of criminal behavior,add illegal mass collection of citizens’ personal information,illegal use of citizens’ personal information and illegal disclosure and dissemination of citizens’ personal information,etc.,so as to adapt to crime and criminal responsibility.