Research On Judicial Determination Of False Litigation Crime

False litigation crime is a common crime in current judicial practice,and there are still many disputes in the application of criminal law.There are big differences in practice and theory regarding the conduct determination of this crime and the standard of completion of the crime,especially in the new crime situation such as "routine loan" and intellectual property rights malicious litigation.The problem of mechanization of judicial determination is particularly prominent.Taking crime prevention and legal interest protection as the value guide,through case analysis and theoretical analysis,the following conclusions are drawn:As far as the conduct of the crime of false litigation is concerned,the“partial tampering type” should be included to eliminate the “one size fits all” phenomenon of criminal conviction.It also proposes that the “partial tampering” behavior is convicted and requires that the circumstance factor or the amount factor must achieve serious consequences.The specific setting of the amount factor adopts the double limit standard of amount and ratio to convict the limited behavior and prevent the penalties from excessively expanding.Regarding the standard of completion of this crime,it is argued that in the perspective of criminal governance,it should be stated as: the perpetrator has achieved the logical purpose of direct behavior that disrupts the order of law after embarking on a false litigation behavior.And in the setting of the completed result node,it is advocated that civil judicial acts that may cause the rights of others to be strictly restrained or punished,as well as substantive judicial acts such as court trials,should be regarded as the completed result node of the crime.Regarding the regulation of malicious litigation on intellectual property rights,behaviors can be categorized based on the basis of litigation rights and the relationship between litigation and defense.And based on the principle of statutory crimes and punishments,this crime should be regulated in a limited way.Only the "fabricated rights type" and the "right flawed type" that falsify key facts should be regulated,and the "right abuse type" without fabricated circumstances should be excluded.