【作者】 李敏；

【导师】 王勇；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 法律硕士（专业学位）， 2021， 硕士

【摘要】 随着网络技术的不断发展,人类生活迈进了信息化时代,促使虚拟化空间成为我们的生活平台,犯罪分子也频繁利用虚拟的网络进行犯罪活动。网络服务的提供者,是在网络空间中发挥着极其重要作用的管理主体,其实际上就是网络服务的运营者。而如今,越来越多的犯罪分子把运营者提供的网络服务作为他们实施犯罪活动的犯罪工具。鉴于此种情况,并基于网络服务提供者自身的技术水平与其作为网络空间的管理主体所处的地位及发挥的作用,非常有必要对其设置一定的刑事责任。《刑法修正案(九)》新增了第28条和第29条两个罪名,在共犯责任模式的基础上,针对网络服务提供者,又增加了主动帮助行为的责任和拒不履行法定义务的责任。虽然《刑法修正案(九)》的出台为进一步规范网络服务提供者的行为提供了法律依据,但在理论界它存在巨大争议,需要更进一步的研究才能进行具体认定。本文在第一部分阐述了网络服务提供者的基本概念,并按照一定的标准对其进行了类型上的划分。目前学界对其内涵有广义说、狭义说两个方面的观点。对于类型的划分标准,笔者根据注意义务与主体类型总结出了两个标准。按照此种标准,笔者又将网络服务提供者细分为三种类型:一是网络内容提供者,二是网络中间服务提供者,三是网络平台服务提供者。第二部分论述了我国对网络服务提供者的刑事责任的认定模式。这部分主要从两个方面进行了介绍,根据第一部分总结出来的三种网络服务提供者的类型,介绍了立法与理论中总结出来的四种服务提供者的刑事责任的承担模式,然后基于前面的总结,分别介绍了这三种网络服务提供者的刑事责任的具体认定。第三部分在前文的基础上,从司法实践的角度出发,介绍了我国网络服务提供者刑事责任方面的问题,着重谈了其认定困境。比如,作为义务范围不明确、主观状态的认定不统一、如何认定犯罪竞合等等,目的是找出实务中所遇到的困境,从而找到解决措施,更好地指导实践。第四部分根据第三部分找到的问题,同样从司法实践的角度出发,一一对应地找到了解决措施,为解决实践问题提供了良好的思路。比如,加强网络服务提供者的权利保障机制、加强义务履行过程中的监督与制约制度等等。当然,这只是笔者对此进行的完善构想,真正的实践需要司法机关与其他相关部门共同努力,才能构建一个更合理的规制体系,从而构建更美好的网络世界。更多还原

【Abstract】 With the continuous development of network technology,the information age has entered human life,prompting virtualized space to become our life platform,and criminals frequently use virtual networks to conduct criminal activities.The provider of network services is the main body of management that plays an extremely important role in the network space.In fact,it is the operator of network services.Nowadays,more and more criminals use network services provided by operators as their criminal tools for criminal activities.In view of this situation,and based on the network service provider’s own technical level and its position and role as the main body of network space management,it is very necessary to set certain criminal liabilities for it.The Criminal Law Amendment(9)added two new crimes,Article28 and Article 29.On the basis of the accomplice liability model,for network service providers,the responsibility for actively assisting behavior and the responsibility for refusal to perform legal obligations have been added responsibility.Although the promulgation of the "Criminal Law Amendment(9)" provides a legal basis for further regulating the behavior of network service providers,it has a huge controversy in the theoretical world,and further research is needed to make a specific determination.In the first part of this article,the basic concepts of network service providers are explained,and they are divided into types according to certain standards.At present,the academic circle has two viewpoints on its connotation in broad sense and narrow sense.Regarding the classification standard of types,the author summarized two standards based on the duty of care and the type of subject.According to this standard,the author subdivides network service providers into three types: one is content providers,the other is intermediate service providers,and the third is platform service providers.The second part discusses our country’s identification mode of the criminal responsibility of network service providers.This part mainly introduces from two aspects.According to the three types of network service providers summarized in the first part,it introduces the four modes of criminal liability of service providers summarized in legislation and theory,and then based on the previous The summary separately introduced the specific determination of the criminal liability of these three types of network service providers.On the basis of the foregoing,the third part introduces the criminal liability of my country’s network service providers from the perspective of judicial practice,and focuses on the identification dilemma.For example,as the scope of the obligation is not clear,the subjective status is not uniform,how to identify the crime coexistence,etc.,the purpose is to find out the difficulties encountered in practice,so as to find solutions and better guide practice.In the fourth part,based on the problems found in the third part,and also from the perspective of judicial practice,the solutions have been found one-to-one,providing good ideas for solving practical problems.For example,strengthening the rights protection mechanism of network service providers,strengthening the supervision and restriction system in the process of fulfilling obligations,and so on.Of course,this is just the author’s perfect idea of this.The real practice requires the joint efforts of the judiciary and other relevant departments to build a more reasonable regulatory system and thus a better online world.更多还原