检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:汤昌兴
机构地区:[1]贵州大学法学院,贵州 贵阳
出 处:《电子商务评论》2024年第2期2855-2862,共8页E-Commerce Letters
摘 要:“刷单炒信”行为与刷单行为的界分是清晰“刷单炒信”行为性质的应有之义,通过对“刷单炒信”行为与刷单行为的界定把握住刑法规制的“刷单炒信”行为的本质。“刷单炒信”行为刑法规制的正当性需要法益侵害性方面、刑法谦抑性方面、民法与行政法规制手段不足方面的分析与论证。“刷单炒信”行为原有刑事规制路径有其弊端,完善“刷单炒信”行为的刑法规制应当从规制路径统一、入罪数额标准科学以及认定边界清晰三个方面进行着手。The distinction between “swiping and speculating” and swiping is to clarify the proper meaning of the nature of “swiping and speculating”, and grasp the essence of the “swiping and speculating” behavior under the criminal law through the definition of “swiping and speculating” and swiping behavior. The legitimacy of the criminal law system of “swiping orders and speculating on credit” requires analysis and demonstration in terms of the infringement of legal interests, the modesty of criminal law, and the inadequacy of civil law and administrative law systems. Improving the criminal legal system for “swiping and speculating on credit” should be carried out from three aspects: the unification of the regulatory path, the scientific standard of the amount of guilt, and the clear boundaries of determination.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.3