“流量劫持”行为民刑法律责任界分机制研究  

Research on the civil and criminal liability boundary mechanism of"traffic hijacking"

作　　者：刘洋 刘舒婷 Liu Yang;Liu Shuting(Law School,Southeast University,Nanjing 210000,China;People′s Procuratorate of Yangchun City,Yangchun 529600,China)

机构地区：[1]东南大学法学院,江苏南京210000 [2]广东省阳春市人民检察院,广东阳春529600

出　　处：《网络安全与数据治理》2025年第3期89-95,102,共8页CYBER SECURITY AND DATA GOVERNANCE

基　　金：最高人民检察院检察应用理论研究课题(41);2024年度广东省人民检察院民事检察研究基地课题(GDMSJCJD202402);2024年山东省社科规划研究一般项目(24CFXJ13);2024年烟台市哲学社会科学规划专项课题(2024-LLCX-023);烟台大学2024年研究生科技创新基金项目(GGIFYTU2405)。

摘　　要：通过对我国关涉“流量劫持”行为刑事判例的研习,可以发现当前司法实践中存在“罪名选择困难、实行行为与帮助行为识别错误、民刑界分不清”问题。鉴于当前学术界未对“流量劫持”行为的处理达成一致观点,亟须依靠类型化思维从定义、类型、本质维度对“流量劫持”行为进行再思考。在责任层面,应当以“计算机系统安全的损害后果严重性”作为法秩序统一性原理指引下民刑责任区分的边界。首先,应以“破坏计算机信息系统罪”追究域名劫持行为刑事责任;以“非法控制计算机信息系统罪”追究链路劫持以及其他未达到“破坏”程度的流量劫持行为刑事责任;在上述两种罪名无法完全涵盖所有犯罪行为时,合理将“提供侵入、非法控制计算机信息系统程序、工具罪”和“帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪”作为兜底罪名予以补充适用。其次,对于虽然具备广义“破坏”之意,但却没有达到“非法控制他人计算机信息系统”程度的“流量劫持”行为,应当将其作为民事反不正当竞争案件论处。最后,取得用户同意是认定劫持行为系合法正当行为的法理基础。Through the study of the criminal cases of"traffic hijacking"in China,it can be found that there are problems of"difficult crime selection,wrong behavior identification and unclear distinction between civil and criminal"in the current judicial practice.Based on the consideration that the current academic circle has not reached a consensus on the treatment of"traffic hijacking"behavior in theory,it is urgent to rely on the typed thinking to rethink the"traffic hijacking"behavior from the dimensions of definition,type and essence.At the level of responsibility,"the seriousness of the damage consequences of computer system security"should be taken as the boundary of"traffic hijacking"under the guidance of the principle of the unity of law and order.Firstly,the crime of damaging computer information systems should be used to pursue criminal liability for domain name hijacking;the crime of illegally controlling computer information systems should be used to pursue criminal liability for link hijacking and other traffic hijacking acts that do not reach the level of"damage."When the above two charges cannot fully cover all criminal acts,the charges of"providing programs or tools for intruding into or illegally controlling computer information systems"and"assisting in criminal activities on information networks"should be reasonable applied as supplementary charges.Secondly,there are still many"traffic hijacking"behaviors in judicial practice,although they have broad"destruction",but do not reach the degree of"illegal control of others′computer information system",which should be treated as civil anti-unfair competition cases.Finally,the user′s consent is the legal basis for determining the legality of hijacking behavior.

关 键 词：“流量劫持”行为 民刑责任界分机制 法秩序统一性原理 

分 类 号：D922.294[政治法律—经济法学]