Search

Copyright of Angle Health Law Review is the property of Angle Publishing Co., Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Court Case Times is the property of Angle Publishing Co., Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Internet Services Provider(ISP) can be divided into Internet Content Provider( ICP), Internet Access Provider( IAP) and Internet Platform Provider( IPP). ICP should be responsible for what contents it provides, and IAP can' t be convicted as an auxiliary criminal. It follows that the relevant judicial interpretation is questionable. As to the IPP, what it did should not be regarded as an auxiliary criminal, since the help it provides usually belongs to a neutral behavior without the danger impermitted by law. The behavior of any companies who provide P2P softwares and other related services usually belongs to normal business operation, and it is improper to consider such a behavior as a danger which should be convicted insomuch as an auxiliary criminal to be punished. The proper way is to deny that their help behavior is guilty and they are auxiliary criminals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is necessary to pay attention objectively to the understanding of the constituent elements when accusing a crime due to doing no report or doing false report of a safety casualty, such as "the fact that one didn't report or did false report", "conditions of a safety casualty" and "delaying the rescue and/or salvage in casualty". The principle of concurrent punishment for several crimes is regarded as reasonable if the crime of safety casualty correlated with other similar crimes done by the same one (s). However, the relevant criminal(s) should be accused just according to the crime of safety casualty itself if it correlated with the guilt of misuse of authority and/or ignoring one' s duty. Now the crime is legally and usually attributed to the case of involuntary violation of law, but in the case there are some complicated internal contradictions to a certain extent. So, defining simply the crime as a case of involuntary violation of law is a legislative oversight, and it is necessary to modify one of the law provisions to the case, i.e. , change "the cases of gross violation" to "the cases of causing severe event". It implies that perfecting legislatively the relevant provisions for the crime by getting rid of the degree of violation but by the severity of the actual result of the criminal act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]