%0 Journal Article
%T 正当维权与敲诈勒索罪的界限问题分析<br>Analysis of the Problem of the Boundary between Legitimate Rights Defense and the Crime of Racketeering
%A 丁续杰
%J Open Journal of Legal Science
%P 1531-1538
%@ 2329-7379
%D 2024
%I Hans Publishing
%R 10.12677/OJLS.2024.123220
%X 随着法律的普及和传播，维权的案件也越来越多，但是在维权过程中出现了很多被当作敲诈勒索罪的情况，法院也出现了许多同案不同判不合理的现象。维权行为并不适用于所有情况和行为，如果行为违反了法律规定，超出了正当防卫或紧急避险的范围，或者以非法占有为目的，威胁他人交付财物，这个行为将构成勒索罪。过度维权行为属于对他人合法权益的干扰和侵害，往往涉及维权者对他人的骚扰、威胁、恶意起诉等行为，其特点是行为超出了合理范围，给他人造成不当困扰或损害。但其是否构成刑事犯罪需要综合考虑多个因素，关键是判断行为是否超越了正常维权的合理限度。过度维权行为通常不会构成犯罪行为，而是民事纠纷范畴。在现代法治社会中，正当维权中不仅要具备目的正当性和合理性，同时手段也必须具有合法性，要综合看待，不能仅仅根据索赔的数额判断行为人是否构成犯罪。此外，必须要结合行为人的目的和行为以及二者之间的关系进行综合判断。<br />
With the popularization and dissemination of the law, there are more and more cases of defending rights, but in the process of defending rights there are many cases that are treated as extortion and racketeering, and the court has also appeared a lot of the same case with different sentences unreasonable phenomenon. Rights defense behavior does not apply to all situations and behaviors, if the behavior violates the provisions of the law, beyond the scope of self-defense or emergency shelter, or with the purpose of unlawful possession, threatening others to deliver the property, this behavior will constitute the crime of extortion. Excessive rights defense behavior belongs to the interference with and infringement of the legitimate rights and interests of others, and often involves harassment, threats and malicious prosecution of others by the rights defender, which is characterized by behavior beyond the reasonable scope, causing undue nuisance or damage to others. However, whether it constitutes a criminal offense requires comprehensive consideration of a number of factors, the key being to determine whether the conduct exceeds the reasonable limits of normal rights defense. Excessive rights defense behavior usually does not constitute a criminal act, but rather the scope of civil disputes. In a modern society governed by the rule of law, the legitimate rights must not only have the legitimacy and reasonableness of the purpose, but also the means must have the legitimacy of the means, and should be viewed in a comprehensive manner, and the amount of the claim alone should not be the basis for judging whether or not the perpetrator constitutes a criminal offense. In addition, the purpose and conduct of the perpetrator and the relationship between the two must be combined for a comprehensive judgment.
%K 敲诈勒索，正当维权，目的及手段合法<br>Extortion
%K Legitimate Defense
%K Lawful Purposes and Means
%U http://www.hanspub.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=82646