【作者】 李竞；

【导师】 简永发；

【作者基本信息】 广西大学 ， 法律（法学）（专业学位）， 2022， 硕士

【摘要】 寻衅滋事罪自设立以来一直我国的刑法学界争议的热点罪名,争议的热点也一直是其“口袋化”问题。寻衅滋事罪作为刑法司法实践中的常见犯罪类型,立法缺陷和司法者恣意认定,导致其“口袋化”的问题日益凸显,阻碍法治社会的进步。因此,对寻衅滋事罪“口袋化”及其限缩路径的研究具有较大的理论意义和实践价值。本文以随意抽取裁判文书网500份寻衅滋事罪的一审判决书为研究样本,了解该罪的司法现状以及存在问题,并有针对性地提出应付对策,欲使寻衅滋事罪摆脱“口袋罪”的宿命。全文除引言和结论外,共分为四个部分,共3.7万字。第一部分,揭露寻衅滋事罪“口袋化”的司法现状。对样本的选择和统计进行说明,保证样本选择的客观性和代表性。通过对样本实证研究,发现司法者裁判的基本规律,探讨寻衅滋事四大类行为类型和定罪样态,以及每一种行为类型定罪的重点和疑点。最后,指出司法裁判中存在的具有代表性、普遍性的现象和问题,比如,流氓动机适用标准不统一,不以危害社会秩序为必要条件,四种行为类型的规范评价混乱。第二部分,分析寻衅滋事罪“口袋化”形成原因。围绕寻衅滋事罪的前身“流氓罪”以及寻衅滋事罪的立法历程,揭露寻衅滋事罪与生俱来的“口袋罪”特性。罪状描述的模糊性和保护法益的不明确,更加表明寻衅滋事罪在现有的刑法环境中难以摆脱“口袋化”嫌疑。第三部分,阐明寻衅滋事罪“口袋化”限缩的应有立场。第一,应当坚守刑法谦抑性原则,在社会秩序维护的过程中尽量不要动用刑法,把刑事犯罪的调整范围缩到最小,真正遵循刑法作为保障法而适用的原则。第二,应当提倡刑法明确性原则,通过刑法规范的明确性,让公民明确自己行为的法律后果,同时让司法者有明确的判断标准。第三,应当坚持利益法益观,使得寻衅滋事罪保护的法益具体化,调整范围清晰化,以明确的行为和刑罚获得公众认同。第四部分,探索寻衅滋事罪“口袋化”限缩的具体路径。借鉴国外先进经验,结合我国具体情况,从立法和司法两个方面共同努力。在立法上,要回归寻衅滋事罪的立法理性、规范法律条文、完善法律解释;在司法上,端正寻衅滋事罪的司法理念,把控自由裁量权,正确处理与其他罪的竞合关系,据此明确限缩寻衅滋事的边界,框定调整范畴,去其“口袋化”属性,真正发挥该罪在社会秩序维护中的作用。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since its establishment,the crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles has been a hot topic in the criminal law field of our country,and its "pocketing" has been the hot topic.As a common crime type in criminal law and judicial practice,the crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles has become increasingly prominent due to legislative defects and judicial arbitrariness,which hinders the progress of the society ruled by law.Therefore,it is of great theoretical significance and practical value to study the "pocketing" of the crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles and its limiting path.In this paper,500 first-instance judgments of the crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles are randomly selected from the judgment document network as the research sample,to understand the judicial status and existing problems of the crime,and put forward targeted countermeasures,in order to make the crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles get rid of the fate of "mouth crime".In addition to the introduction and conclusion,the paper is divided into four parts,with a total of 40 thousand words.The first part reveals the current judicial situation of "pocketing" crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles.Sample selection and statistics are explained to ensure the objectivity and representativeness of sample selection.Through the empirical study of the samples,the basic rules of judges’ judgment are found,and the four types of behavior and pattern of conviction are discussed,as well as the emphases and doubts of conviction of each type of behavior.Finally,it points out the representative and universal phenomena and problems in judicial judgment,for example,the application standard of hooligan motive is not unified,it is not necessary to endanger social order,and the standard evaluation of the four types of behavior is chaotic.The second part analyzes the cause of "pocketing" of the crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles.Centering on the crime of "hooliganism",the predecessor of the crime of "picking quarrels and provoking troubles",and the legislative process of the crime of "picking quarrels and provoking troubles",the author reveals the inherent characteristics of the crime of "mouth crime".The vagueness of the description of the crime and the vagueness of the protection interests further indicate that the crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles is difficult to get rid of the suspicion of "pocketing" in the existing criminal law environment.The third part expounds the due position of "pocketing" to limit the crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles.First,we should stick to the principle of modesty of criminal law,try not to use criminal law in the process of maintaining social order,minimize the adjustment scope of criminal crimes,and truly follow the principle that criminal law is applied as a guarantee law.Secondly,the principle of definiteness of criminal law should be advocated.Through the definiteness of criminal law norms,citizens can be clear about the legal consequences of their actions and judges can have clear judgment standards.Third,we should adhere to the view of legal interests,make the legal interests of the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble protection specific,clear adjustment scope,clear behavior and punishment to obtain public recognition.The fourth part explores the specific path of "pocketing" to limit the crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles.Drawing on the advanced experience of foreign countries and combining with the specific situation of Our country,we should make joint efforts from the legislative and judicial aspects.In legislation,we should return to the legislative rationality of the crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles,standardize legal provisions and perfect legal interpretation.In judicature,correct the judicial concept of the crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles,control discretion,correctly handle the competition and cooperation relationship with other crimes,clearly limit the boundary of picking quarrels and provoking troubles,frame the adjustment category,remove its "pocket" attribute,and really play the role of the crime in maintaining social order.更多还原