Research On The Crime Of Refusing To Perform The Obligation Of Information Network Security Management

As a pure crime of omission,the breach of obligation directly leads to the assumption of responsibility.The scope of obligation determines whether the act is a crime or not The role and obligation given to the actor has not been assumed and the principal offender has not been established.It is pointed out that the type of network service provider induced by this crime,through the elaboration of the harm result,the scope of this crime and the criminal responsibility under the conflict of obligations can be absolved.The executive branch has not interfered with the independence of criminal justice by ordering the correction of criminal acts,and has divided the criminal offences with administrative prerequisite into two categories,one is illegal administrative acts,and the other is participatory administrative acts The administrative prerequisite of this crime belongs to the Administrative Act of participation,which affirms the rule of independence of criminal law.The standards of correction made by the ISP prevent the amplification of results that are within the scope of the business and can be controlled.The subjective fault of this crime takes the form of intention,the nature of the act of not performing the obligation itself and the result of the harm caused by the act need to be clearly known,and the ambiguity of the content and degree of understanding as long as it does not have a material effect,does not affect the determination of intent.As to how to determine intent if information is wrongly believed not to violate the law and no corrective measures have been taken,the cognition of administrative illegality should not be regarded as the content of the cognition of intent,but the establishment of administrative offender should meet the requirement of the cognition at the same time,the possibility that an act violates administrative regulations or criminal law,and the perpetrator simply believes that his act does not violate administrative law,can not exclude the determination of intent,if there is no possibility to recognize the violation of Administrative Law,the actor can not be considered as intentional,and the possibility of knowing administrative illegality is based on the standard of common people.The Act of neutral assistance is not usually punishable and is not punished by criminal law.The determination of the punishability does not satisfy the social proportionality on the basis of creating an impermissible risk From this,we can draw a conclusion that the behavior of the network service provider still doesn't fulfill its obligation after receiving the order of the supervision department to correct it,which can make the neutral behavior criminal,and the actor creates the risk of legal interest When the risk is realized,it is natural to pursue the criminal responsibility of the network service provider.To distinguish this crime from the crime of helping information network crime,in essence,the regulated acts do not exceed the service scope of the crime,t he application of this crime conviction,beyond the service scope of the act as identified as a positive act of crime.The same act both as a crime and as acrime,referring to the same act as two crimes can also constitute an imaginat ive joinder of crime,punishment according to a felony punishment.