【作者】 杨帆；

【导师】 胡启忠；

【作者基本信息】 西南财经大学 ， 法律（非法学）（专业学位）， 2022， 硕士

【摘要】 本文通过对“江苏女辅警敲诈勒索”案的情况进行解读,并且对一审、二审的判决以及社会反响进行总结,提炼出该案件的争议焦点,以此为切入点,试图构建“敲诈索财”行为模型,对许某行为的性质认定进行分析。本文分为四个部分,全文约四万五千字。第一章是在明确敲诈索财行为既有分类不足基础上,依据“索财行为和事实基础是否有关联”,将敲诈索财行为划分为“事外人索财”与“事中人索财”两种类型。其中,“事外人索财”行为构成敲诈勒索罪,“事中人索财”根据索财事由是否事出有因,可进一步将其划分为“先因型索财”与“无因型索财”两种类型。考虑到本案中,无论是许某向孙某、寇某等人所提出的讨要说法、怀孕补偿、分手补偿,还是许某向林某、刘某乙等人提出“购买房屋”的索财诉求,抑或是许某向兰某乙、徐某甲等人提出的公开关系而索要财物的行为,其索财行为都事出有因,因而归入“先因型索财”类型。第二章是在明确许某行为属于“先因型索财”类型后,对“先因型索财”行为所作的再划分。根据行为人“索财事由上是否具有请求权基础”“索赔数额上是否合理”“索财手段是否合法”以及相对人“给付财物目的是否正当”4个指标,构建了16种行为模型。然后,结合敲诈勒索罪的构成要件,运用演绎推理,对不同模型作定性分析。第三章回归许某“敲诈勒索”案件本身,运用上述模型对许某行为进行应然层面的定性,并从中得出结论。从索赔事由来看,许某的索财行为涉及怀孕补偿、分手补偿、讨要说法、购买房屋几种情形;从索赔数额来看,许某的索财金额从十余万到百余万不等;从索财手段来看,许某既有揭发检举,也存在闹事威胁。针对不同情形,明确许某“正当行权”“过度维权”“敲诈勒索罪”的不同行为性质。第四章对本案中的司法裁判予以评论。在一审判决中,法院并未从行为定性层面对许某的“先因型索财”行为做类型划分;亦未将许某不构成敲诈勒索罪的数额剔除;而二审程序中也存在案件判决思路不清,裁判理由没有阐明说理逻辑的问题。整体而言,法院在审理本案时,存在案件类型思维欠缺,认定标准缺失,说理不够充分等诸多问题。本文可能有以下创新:第一,本文对“敲诈索财”行为进行划分为“事外人索财”与“事中人索财”两种类型,在“事中人索财”基础上再次划分为“先因型索财”与“无因型索财”两种类型,其划分标准更加细腻明确,弥补先前学术理论对其定义的缺陷。第二,本文通过从行为人与相对人双方角度出发,在现有的学术基础上创新性地将“先因型索财”行为再次划分为16种模型,并对16种模型的性质定性,将索财案件套入模型进行判断,试图为司法实践中罪与非罪的认定提供新的思路。当然,由于笔者学识有限,本文也有诸多不足,比如:第一,本文以案例分析的形式进行论述,在文章写作过程中,各个理论探讨得较为浅显,理论并未过于深入;第二,本文研究而所得出的结论虽然从法理角度而言能够自圆其说,但是否具有现实的可操作性还有待司法实践的检验;第三,笔者的法言法语表达能力还是有所欠缺,部分行文稍显白话与拖沓。更多还原

【Abstract】 This paper interprets the case of "extortion and extortion of Jiangsu female auxiliary police",summarizes the judgments of the first and second instance and social repercussions,extracts the focus of controversy of the case,takes this as the starting point,attempts to construct the behavior model of "extortion and extortion" and analyze the nature of Xu’s behavior.This paper is divided into four parts,as follows:In the first chapter,on the basis of clarifying the existing classification deficiencies of extortion for money,according to "whether the extortion for money is related to the factual basis",the extortion for money is divided into two types: "people in the matter for money" and "people outside the matter for money".Among them,the act of "asking for money by outsiders" constitutes the crime of extortion,and "asking for money by people in the matter" can be further divided into two types: "first cause seeking for money" and "non cause seeking for money".Considering that in this case,whether it is Xu’s claim to sun,Kou,etc.,pregnancy compensation,breakup compensation,Xu’s claim to Zhu,Guan,etc.,or Xu’s claim to property for an open relationship to LAN,etc.,his claim to property has a reason,so it is classified into the type of "antecedent claim to property".The second chapter is the re division of the behavior of "first cause seeking for money" after it is clear that Xu’s behavior belongs to the type of "first cause seeking for money".16 kinds of behavior models are constructed according to the four indicators of the actor "whether there is the basis of claim on the cause of property claim","whether the amount of claim is reasonable","whether the means of property claim is legal" and "whether the purpose of property payment is legitimate".Then,combined with the constituent elements of the crime of extortion,this paper makes a qualitative analysis of different models by using deductive reasoning.The third chapter returns to Xu’s "extortion" case itself,uses the above model to characterize Xu’s behavior at the expected level,and draws a conclusion.From the origin of the claim,Xu’s claim for money involves pregnancy compensation,breakup compensation,asking for advice and buying a house;From the claim amount,Xu’s claim amount ranges from more than 100000 to more than one million;From the perspective of financial means,Xu not only exposed and reported,but also threatened to make trouble.According to different situations,clarify the different nature of Xu’s "legitimate exercise of power","excessive protection of rights" and "crime of extortion".The fourth chapter comments on the judicial decision in this case.In the judgment of the first instance,the court did not classify Xu’s behavior of "first cause seeking money" from the qualitative level of behavior;Also did not exclude the amount that did not constitute the crime of extortion;There are also some problems in the procedure of second instance,such as unclear thinking of case judgment,and the reason of judgment does not clarify the reasoning logic.On the whole,when the court tried the case,there were many problems,such as lack of case type thinking,lack of identification standards,insufficient reasoning and so on.This article may have the following innovations:First,starting from a large number of judicial practice cases,this paper divides extortion into two types: "people seeking money in the matter" and "people seeking money outside the matter".On the basis of "people seeking money in the matter",it is divided into two types: "first cause seeking money" and "non cause seeking money",and its classification standard is more delicate and clear,Make up for the defects of its definition in previous academic theories.Second,from the perspective of both the actor and the opposite party,this paper creatively divides the "first cause demand for money" behavior into 16 models on the existing academic basis,determines the nature of the 16 models,and sets the demand for money cases into the model for judgment,trying to provide new ideas for the identification of crime and non crime in judicial practice.Of course,due to the author’s limited knowledge,this paper also has many deficiencies,such as: first,this paper discusses it in the form of case analysis.In the process of writing,each theory is discussed more simply,and the theory is not too in-depth;Second,although the conclusion of this paper can be justified from the perspective of jurisprudence,whether it has practical operability remains to be tested by judicial practice;Third,the author’s French expression ability is still lacking,and some of the writing is a little vernacular and procrastination.更多还原