【作者】 何瑾；

【导师】 孙万怀；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 法律（专业学位）， 2012， 硕士

【摘要】 近年来，随着国家经济建设的高速发展，社会转型势在必行，社会矛盾日益突显，其中作为典型的“官民”冲突即妨害公务类案件也呈现持续高发态势，不少成为社会关注的焦点和热点问题，一定程度上影响了国家的稳定和发展。我国《刑法》第277条虽然对妨害公务罪作了明文规定，但由于法条规定过于抽象、概括，而司法实践中的妨害公务类案件则具有复杂多样性，故司法实务部门对于妨害公务罪在犯罪对象的具体范围、公务行为的“合法性”与“适时性”、“暴力、威胁”手段的内涵、方式和程度等犯罪构成客观方面的认定上存在较大争议，直接表现为罪与非罪、此罪与彼罪的问题，加之司法自由裁量权的存在，极易造成同案不同判的情况，影响了该类案件司法裁判的严肃性和统一性。本文以近年来国内司法实践中的判例为切入点，通过对妨害公务类案件开展实证分析，结合对本罪犯罪构成客观方面的刑法学理进行细致梳理和深入研究，认为对本罪中的犯罪对象范围的认定应严格依法限定为“国家机关工作人员、人大代表和红十字会工作人员”这三类人员，以防止刑罚的扩大化，同时还包括与公务执行有密切联系的财物，但不包括上述三类人员的亲友；公务行为“合法性”是构成本罪不可或缺的重要要件和前提条件，并应坚持“实质加形式”的认定要件，一般由法院根据公务行为实施时为标准进行判断，且依法执行公务之“时”也是认定本罪成立与否的重要环节，包括将要开始执行公务的准备阶段、实际执行阶段和与执行公务密切联系的待机状态；本罪中的暴力手段包括“间接暴力”，但不包括“无形暴力”，威胁手段中的“以自杀、自残相威胁”需结合具体案情加以区别对待，而暴力、威胁的程度则应遵循“具体危险犯”说，同时区分不同伤情结果提高本罪的法定刑幅度，做到主客观相一致、罪刑相适应，并进一步明确毁坏与公务相关财物的数额标准，以合法、合理地规制该类犯罪，切实保障国家正常的管理活动和公民个人的合法权益，积极营造和谐良好的法治环境。更多还原

【Abstract】 In recent years, along with the rapid development of economic construction inChina, social transformation results in growing social contradictions. As a typicalconflict between the officials and the public, criminal cases of disrupting publicservice frequently occur nowadays, which becomes the focus and hot spot issue, tosome extent, affects the country’s stability and development. Though clause277ofCriminal Law of China identifies the crime of disrupting public service, due to theabstraction and diversity of the clause and the complex of the criminal cases injudicial practice, there exists more controversy on constitutive elements of target of acrime, the “legitimacy” and “timeliness” of official act, and the intention, forms andextent of violent and threat means, which leads to different results for the same kindof crimes. Because of the discretion, the trial might result in conviction or not, in onekind of crime or another, which affects the seriousness and consistency of judicialadministration.From the perspective of domestic criminal cases, this article aims to sort out andresearch on the constitutive elements of crimes of disrupting public service byanalyzing such kind of cases. The target of a crime shall be strictly limited within therange of “state personnel、National People’s Congress and local levels People’s Congress、the Red Cross staff” in accordance with the law to avoid penalty magnify,which also includes close contact with the official implementation of the property, butexclude the relatives and friends of those three types of personnel mentioned above.The “legitimacy” of official act is one of the important elements and preconditionsthat constitute the crime, the finding of which shall be adhered to the identifiedelements of “essence” and “formality”. Usually, the court will judge on the time whenan official act is implemented, because time of implementing the official act is the keystandard to judge guilty or not, the periods of which consist of preparation phase, theactual implementation phase and closely standby for implementing official act.Violent means in this crime include the extent of “indirect violence”, but not“invisible violence”. The threat means of “committing suicide or self-mutilationthreat” need to be affirmed according to the particular circumstances of the case,while, the extent of violence or threat shall be judged follow the principle of “specificDangerous Criminals”. Meanwhile, set different legally-prescribed punishmentscorrespondingly with different injury resulted in crimes in consistent with theprinciples of subjective and objective consistent and suiting punishment to legitimateand a further clarified standard of destroyed amount of official property, so as tolawfully and reasonably regulate the classes of this crime, and effectively protect thenormal governmental management activities and the legitimate rights and interests ofindividual citizens, and actively create a harmonious and favorable legal environment.更多还原