敲诈勒索手段行为的教义学检讨

我国刑法典对敲诈勒索罪行为的罪名式表述未能为我们区分和认识该罪的行为手段提供明确的指引,学界和实务界采取的是相对比较随意和混同的表述,暴力、威胁、要挟、胁迫以及恐吓各种称谓兼而有之,且未详加区分。结合词源考察,对其行为方式进行区分和鉴别,以“暴力”与“威胁”指称其行为手段是比较恰当的,进而就敲诈勒索的手段行为的“暴力”与“威胁”的内容、程度、方式,包括不作为的威胁等进行教义视角的检讨,这将有助于我们对实务中各种不同敲诈勒索行为的识别和定性。

On the Dogmatics of Blackmail Method Act

The expression of blackmail in China's Criminal Code fails to provide clear guidance for us to distinguish and identify the means of action of blackmail crime,academics and practitioners adopt relatively random and confused expressions,including violence,threats,coercion and intimidation,without detailed distinction.Combined with etymological investigation,the author distinguishes its behavior,it is more appropriate to use“violence”and“threat”to refer to their means of conduct.Furthermore,the author makes a review of the content,degree and mode of“violence”and“threat”of extortion,including the threat of inaction according to the dogmatics of civil law.Distinguishing the different manifestations and specific identification of violent intimidation and threatening intimidation will help us to identify and characterize the various acts of extortion in practice.