發(fā)布時間：2019-07-09 11:46

【摘要】：改革開放以來，我國廣告事業(yè)突飛猛進，但是隨之出現(xiàn)的是虛假廣告的大肆泛濫，嚴(yán)重侵犯了消費者的合法權(quán)益，擾亂了市場經(jīng)濟的自由競爭秩序。為了遏止此種情況，我國97年刑法典新增虛假廣告罪，但是面對海量的虛假廣告行為，被判處此罪的卻只有寥寥數(shù)起。造成這種司法窘境的主要原因首先在于刑法在虛假廣告罪的內(nèi)涵界定、認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)上不清晰，，使司法人員在面對虛假廣告行為時往往難以準(zhǔn)確把握該罪的適用范圍，只能在罪與非罪、此罪與彼罪之間徘徊。其次，虛假廣告罪將犯罪主體限定為廣告主、廣告經(jīng)營者及廣告發(fā)布者，但實際上廣告薦證者也有可能在其中發(fā)揮重大作用。另外，現(xiàn)有立法僅僅對商業(yè)廣告予以規(guī)制也稍顯狹隘。再次，從刑罰配置來看，虛假廣告罪的法定刑幅度單一，刑懲力度不足，罰金刑的適用也缺乏可操作性。以上諸多不足之處，在某種程度上限制了對虛假廣告行為的預(yù)防和打擊。 本文在對我國虛假廣告罪的立法沿革與立法現(xiàn)狀進行梳理和分析的基礎(chǔ)上，參考域外的先進立法，對我國虛假廣告罪的立法及司法完善問題提出了一些設(shè)想。具體包括：統(tǒng)一虛假廣告罪的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，明確“虛假廣告”和“情節(jié)嚴(yán)重”的界定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)；擴大對虛假廣告的規(guī)制范圍；將廣告薦證者引入虛假廣告罪的責(zé)任主體；在刑罰配置上，增設(shè)法定刑幅度，完善罰金刑。以期該罪名能夠更好的發(fā)揮其維護市場經(jīng)濟秩序、保護消費者合法權(quán)益的作用。
[Abstract]:Since the reform and opening up, China's advertising industry has advanced by leaps and bounds, but then there is a huge proliferation of false advertising, which seriously infringes on the legitimate rights and interests of consumers and disrupts the free competition order of the market economy. In order to curb this situation, the 1997 Criminal Code of our country added the crime of false advertising, but in the face of a large number of false advertising acts, only a few people were convicted of this crime. The main reason for this judicial dilemma lies in the definition of the connotation of the crime of false advertising in criminal law, and the identification standard is not clear, which makes it difficult for judicial personnel to accurately grasp the scope of application of the crime in the face of false advertising behavior, and can only wander between crime and non-crime, this crime and that crime. Secondly, the crime of false advertising limits the subject of crime to advertisers, advertising operators and advertising publishers, but in fact, advertising referrals may also play an important role in them. In addition, the existing legislation only to regulate commercial advertising is also slightly narrow. Thirdly, from the point of view of penalty allocation, the legal punishment range of false advertising crime is single, the punishment is insufficient, and the application of fine penalty is also lack of maneuverability. To some extent, the above shortcomings limit the prevention and punishment of false advertising. On the basis of combing and analyzing the legislative evolution and present situation of false advertising crime in our country, and referring to the advanced legislation outside the country, this paper puts forward some tentative ideas on the legislation and judicial perfection of false advertising crime in our country. The concrete includes: unifying the identification standard of false advertisement crime, defining the definition standard of "false advertisement" and "serious circumstances"; expanding the regulation scope of false advertisement; introducing the advertisement recommendation to the subject of responsibility of false advertisement crime; in the penalty allocation, adding the legal penalty range to perfect the fine penalty. In order to better play its role in maintaining market economic order and protecting the legitimate rights and interests of consumers.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924.33;D922.294

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前7條

1 司若;;制片人——影視劇項目經(jīng)理的角色定位與工作責(zé)任[J];當(dāng)代電影;2010年06期

2 應(yīng)飛虎;;對虛假廣告治理的法律分析[J];法學(xué);2007年03期

3 宋亞輝;;廣告薦證人承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任的司法認(rèn)定——針對《廣告法(修訂征求意見稿)》第60條的研究[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2009年05期

4 鄧綱;;爭議與困惑:經(jīng)濟法中的法律責(zé)任研究述評[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2012年01期

5 黎邦勇;張洪成;;重新認(rèn)識虛假廣告罪的法益位階及構(gòu)成要件[J];中國刑事法雜志;2009年07期

6 成靖;;論薦證廣告的法律規(guī)制[J];政治與法律;2007年05期

7 曾詠梅;;論商業(yè)廣告代言人的法律責(zé)任[J];中國人民大學(xué)學(xué)報;2009年01期

本文編號：2512124