Judicial Determination Of The Objective Elements Of The Crime Of Obstructing Drug Administration

The crime of obstructing drug administration is a new crime added to the Criminal Law Amendment(11),which aims to bring acts that seriously endanger the order of drug administration into the jurisdiction of the criminal law,implement the criminal policy of severely punishing drug crimes,build a new system of criminal laws and regulations for drug safety,and realize the protection of drug management order and the public’s life and health.Whether it is a theological interpretation of the crime of obstructing drug management in the entire drug regulation system,or an examination of the judicial practice of drug crime,it can be found that the identification of the objective elements of the crime of obstructing drug management is the key to this crime,and it is also a major difficulty in judicial application.In the context of the new drug regulation system and the new legislation on crimes that hinder drug administration,it is necessary to adjust the judicial recognition rules accordingly.The objective elements of the crime of obstructing drug administration mainly include two parts,one is that the act is one of the four obstructive acts that "violate drug administration regulations",and the other is that the behavior creates a specific danger that is "sufficient to seriously endanger human health".Such a limited number of types of conduct without a catchall clause,coupled with the setting of specific dangers that are difficult to identify as"sufficient to seriously endanger human health",make the conditions for incrimination of this crime relatively strict at the legislative level,more restrictive at the level of judicial application,and the judicial recognition standards are excessively narrow compared with the legislative intent.Specifically,the identification of obstructive acts is limited to a narrow textual superficial interpretation,and the lack of substantive determination process narrows the scope of the obstructive act itself;At the level of specific danger determination,some enumerated judgment situations are proposed,but the lack of typed identification standards and unified discretionary standards makes the specific danger identification standards limited and difficult,and to a certain extent,the application space of this crime is improperly compressed,and the original intention of this crime to severely punish drug crimes cannot be realized.In view of the problem that the above objective elements are unduly narrowed,we should first conduct a theological examination of the establishment of the objective elements of this crime,respond to the controversial views of the academic circles on increasing the types of obstructive acts or adding catch-all acts,and demonstrate that the current four types of obstructive acts are sufficient to regulate behaviors that undermine the order of drug management worthy of criminal punishment in terms of both the stage of conduct and the mode of conduct.At the same time,it is agreed that the element of "sufficient to seriously endanger human health",which has been controversial since the stage of legislative discussion,as one of the conditions for the criminalization of this crime,is the essence of the obstruction act with many connotations,and it is also an important condition for the orderly connection between this crime and administrative law and avoiding confusion.In the context of supporting strict legislation,in order to conform to the original legislative intention of severely punishing drug crimes for this crime and realize the dual protection of the interests of order law and health law,it is necessary to make a reasonable and substantive interpretation of the judicial recognition standards on the basis of following the principle of legality of crimes and within the scope that can be covered by the original text of the law,so as to fully and reasonably play the due value of this crime.As for the scope of the four types of obstructive acts,many views hold that acts such as "selling before inspection" also have the necessary criminal punishment but cannot be regulated by this crime,so it is proposed to expand the constituent elements of conduct.This article points out through comparison of executions and other means that this is actually a misreading of the criminal standards for obstructive acts,and directly transfers the classification standards and connotation definition of administrative law for acts that disrupt the order of drug management to the formal determination.Through the analysis of each act,the substantive connotation of the behavior under the criminal law classification standard of this crime is constructed.At the same time,it is pointed out that those atypical obstructive acts that are not directly manifested in name and form as constituting the essential mode of conduct should not be excluded from the jurisdiction of this crime,but should be substantively determined through the analysis of the stage of the act,the object of the act,and the method and means.Combined with the characteristics of statutory obstructive acts,the first two acts are collectively referred to as unauthorized obstructive acts,and the latter two acts are collectively referred to as deceptive obstructive acts,focusing on the interpretation of the scope of illegal drugs,unlicensed drugs and false data and records of their respective targets.Through the combing and analysis of the mode of conduct and the object of conduct,reasonably clarify and improve the standards for determining the crime of obstructing drug administration and obstructing conduct.With regard to the difficulty in determining "sufficient to seriously endanger human health"as one of the conditions for the criminalization of this crime,and even the alienation of the determination of specific danger into the determination of the result in judicial practice,the so-called substantive typological determination standard of specific dangers actually means that a clear-scale,detailed,unified and operable judicial determination rule and path should be constructed for the determination of specific danger,so that the determination of specific danger will no longer be alienated due to the difficulty factor in a reasonable space.The general identification standard for specific hazards is to classify risks that directly reflect drug safety and quality,such as risks outweighing benefits,as deterministic specific dangers,and behaviors and their objects that do not meet drug-related standards as uncertain risks.At the same time,rules for the direct identification of specific dangers with certainty and comprehensive identification of specific dangers with uncertainty are constructed,and the impact of factors such as the degree of order violation on the determination of specific dangers is confirmed.Based on the latest judicial interpretation of this crime,grasp the starting point that the criminal law rules for special drugs are different from those for ordinary drugs,and respectively clarify that the specific risk determination rules for legally prescribed special drugs should pay special attention to the application of the "four strict" policies,and at the same time further clarify the interpretation and grasp scale of the specific danger exclusion rules for folk formula drugs.Within a lawful and reasonable framework,the objective elements of this crime should be expanded restrictively,which not only avoids excessive extension of criminal law tentacles,but also conforms to the "four strict" policy of drug crimes,tightens the criminal law network,and severely punishes drug crimes.