摘  要：我国的司法实践中对过度维权以敲诈勒索罪定罪持限制态度。司法实践认定行为人故意制造事端以索要钱财的行为成立敲诈勒索罪。实践中对于过度维权这类行为同案异判的现象较为明显，对于同一个案件司法机关也经常出现不同的判决结果。过度维权的行为在特定条件下可以构成敲诈勒索罪。消费者以向媒体曝光的方式作为高额索赔的手段属于敲诈勒索罪中的威胁行为。消费者提出的高额赔偿要求只有在能够证明索赔的行为具有合理性且与社会大众的普遍观念一致时,才能否认其主观上存在非法占有的目的。并不是只要存在侵权纠纷这一前因,就能成为违法阻却事由。但即使消费者维权过度成立敲诈勒索犯罪,在行为人索取的赔偿没有实际取得的情形下应根据其维权过程中实施的具体情节从轻、减轻或免除处罚。61238

毕业论文关键词：消费者，过度维权，敲诈勒索，有罪化

Abstract: The judicial practice of China to over rights to racketeering sin limit was the attitude of conviction. The judicial practice that the offender made disturbance intentionally set up racketeering sin to extort money behavior. Practice to behavior, such as excessive rights different connection with the given phenomenon was more obviously, for the same case judicial authorities also often appeared different verdict. Over the rights of behavior under certain conditions can make crime of extortion. Consumers in the form of exposure to the media as a tool of high claim belong to blackmail the threat behavior of sin. Consumer's high request for financial compensation only can prove the claim behavior was rationality and consistent with the society the idea of the general public, to deny its subjective existence the purpose of illegal possession. Not as long as there was infringement because before this, can become illegal deterrent. But even if the consumer rights protection excessive blackmail crime, the offender claim compensation without the actual situation should be based on its rights in the process of implementation of the specific circumstances given a lighter or mitigated punishment or be exempted from punishment.

Key words: consumers, excessive activist, extortion, guilty 

1引言4

2过度维权与敲诈勒索的典型案例及分析4

2.1过度维权与敲诈勒索典型案例4

2.2对过度维权与敲诈勒索案例的分析5

3对我国过度维权行为审判现状的分析6

3.1消费者维权困难限制过度维权行为入罪6

3.2刑罚轻缓化的考虑限制过度维权行为入罪7

3.3新闻媒体干预司法限制过度维权行为入罪7

4过度维权与敲诈勒索的界分8

4.1手段：向媒体曝光属威胁行为8

4.2数额：高额索赔不存在合理性属非法占有8

4.3有因性:并非有原因就能成为违法阻却事由9

结语11

参考文献12

致谢13

1 引言

消费者由于与经营者之间存在侵权或违约纠纷，而认为自己有向对方取得赔偿的权利，但在维权过程中通过具有威胁性质的手段获取他人财物的行为,是维权过度还是敲诈勒索的问题值得研究。随着我国法治进程的快速发展，人们的权利意识逐渐加强,消费者在权益受到侵害时更多的选择了维权而不是想着大事化小，小事化了。但是,在维权过程中消费者常常会因为方式不恰当而遭到刑事追究。倍受人们关注的黄静与华硕公司的笔记本电脑天价索赔案就是过度维权的典型性案例。公安、检察以及审判机关在面对这类案件时没有确定的结论的原因不是案件事实不清或是证据不足,而是人们对这种案件的性质存在争议，到底是过度维权还是敲诈勒索源:自'751.·论,文;网·www.751com.cn/，法律对此并没有明确的规定。司法部门虽然已经对这种案件做出了处理,但是在司法实务界和刑法理论界都没有达成共识。理论的争鸣会使人们更为深刻地理解问题，因而理论界的争论并不是一件坏事。但是站在司法实践的角度, 各部门在处理一类案件时不能达成共识将不利于刑法的稳定,会影响刑法的统一适用。因此,实践中对消费者过度维权行为的研究具有重要的现实意义。 论过度维权与敲诈勒索的界分:http://www.751com.cn/faxue/lunwen_66891.html