英文摘要 |
In this case, the improper revision of“Offenses of Assembles the Masses for Acting Violence or Threats”was given a restrained interpretation. This crime is to protect public safety, not the public security criminal law model expected in the legislative process. The Supreme Court believes that the circumstances of this crime include occasional instigation of gatherings, gatherings due to other events, or the group tends to become violent, and the perpetrators have not left. Most of the theoretical discussions also adopt the view of affirming the judgment of this case. However, as to whether the participants need to understand the situation of violence among the masses, there were disagreements in academic discussions, which further affected the illegal connotation of this crime. The Supreme Court's use of“The intent to commit a crime jointly”as the term used to describe the concatenation of participants, which obviously ignores the subjective determination of individual participants. It is more likely to have side effects of overly broad determinations that endanger the freedom of assembly and illegal judgments and should be avoided. In addition, regarding whether it endangers public safety, the judgment of this case adopts the“spillover effect”standard. Although it has the meaning of simple operation in the judgment of various situations, but it will be confused with personal legal interests, and with the wrong imagination of social and psychological collective deterioration, which needs to be reconsidered. |