论索赔型敲诈勒索行为司法认定-法律专业论文.docxVIP

万方数据 万方数据 否属于威胁、胁迫，对司法实践中颇具争议性的“知假买假”后高额 索赔行为进行阐述。笔者认为，当前国内制售假冒伪劣商品情况严重， 消费者的合法维权既是对自身合法权益的保护，对制止制假售假、生 产销售不合格产品等商业性欺诈行为也颇有益处，对此类案件尤其要 严格把握行为人是否具有非法占有目的，防止刑法对民事行为的过度 介入。在论述向政府和国家机关工作人员索赔行为中，主要围绕“上 访”是否属于威胁和要挟、政府是否可成为敲诈勒索罪对象、对行使 合法公权力的国家机关工作人员个人索赔行为的定性等问题开展论 述。笔者认为，基于正当目的的上访行为是受到国家法律保护的；政 府作为国家权力机关，不能成为敲诈勒索罪的被害人；因国家机关工 作人员对其行使公权力行为并不负个人责任，因此以行使公权力存在 瑕疵向国家机关工作人员本人索要钱财的行为可能构成敲诈勒索罪。 最后，本文对索赔型敲诈勒索行为司法认定中最为多见的罪名混 淆，即敲诈勒索罪与诈骗罪、敲诈勒索罪与抢劫罪进行了辨析，如敲 诈勒索罪与抢劫罪中争议颇大的暴力程度区分问题等，笔者认为敲诈 勒索罪的暴力主要是对被害人心理施压，其程度主要是使被害人由于 心理恐惧不敢反抗而非不能反抗。 关键词：索赔，敲诈勒索，司法认定 IV JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF EXTORTIONS WHICH IN THE FORM OF CLAIM ABSTRACT Exactions on crime is a violation of the common crime of property crime, but also in todays more and more harm to the crime, because the theory is not perfect, the legislation is not clear, cause the qualitative behavior of the disputes, Civil claims identified as acts of crime of blackmail and impose exactions on the circumstances. This paper selects the current controversy is more concentrated, were considered to constitute the crime of blackmail and impose exactions on behavior in the case of compensation for spiritual damages, for consumer rights and petition process, Through the actual problem and cause of the crime in our country is not clear about, to provide suggestions for Chinas legislation and judicial practice, with a view to theoretical research and judicial practice of claim type blackmail and impose exactions on behavior has advice. First, through the dispute case described current situation of Chinas claim blackmail and impose exactions on offence, such as the elements of crime in understanding differences, crime and non-crime boundary is not clear, this crime and that crime is easily confused. V Then, the article takes the case as an example, three kinds of claims type blackmail and impose exactions on behavior in current judicial practice disputes more concentrated were discussed. In the spiritual damage compensation claim behavior discussion, mai