civil
Although false accusation will have a great impact on the reputation of the parties, it does not meet the constitutive requirements of the crime of false accusation and frame-up.
If its false accusation really causes you great losses, you can claim civil compensation. Lawyer Yip Wong? |? 2006-03-02 16: 13:40
Although the criminal law circles in our country have expounded the related problems of the crime of false accusation and frame-up, the discussion is not deep enough, and no consensus has been reached on some important issues, which directly affects the conviction and sentencing of this crime. This paper attempts to discuss and analyze several problems of the crime of false accusation and frame-up.
First, the definition of the crime of false accusation and framing
Regarding the definition of the crime of false accusation and frame-up, there are mainly the following viewpoints in theory:
Some people think that the crime of false accusation and frame-up refers to a serious act of fabricating criminal facts and reporting them to judicial organs or relevant units with the intention of making others subject to criminal investigation.
Others believe that the crime of false accusation and frame-up refers to a serious act of deliberately fabricating criminal facts and reporting them to state organs or relevant units with the intention of making others subject to criminal investigation.
Others believe that the crime of false accusation and frame-up refers to the act of fabricating criminal facts and making false reports to the state judicial organs or relevant units with the intention of subjecting others to criminal investigation.
The above definition of the crime of false accusation and frame-up emphasizes that the crime of false accusation and frame-up must be reported to the state organs or relevant units. The differences are as follows: first, whether the word "intentional" should be added before fabricating criminal facts. The second definition above is expressed as "deliberately fabricating criminal facts", while the first and third definitions do not have the word "intentionally". Second, whether the accusation should be labeled as "false". There is "false accusation" in the third definition, and the other two definitions are only "accusation". Third, whether the definition should include "serious circumstances". This content is included in the first and second definitions of the above three definitions, but not in the third definition.
The author thinks that "reporting to the national judicial organs or relevant units" is the * * * knowledge of the above three definitions, but this * * * knowledge is not appropriate. Because this will limit the object of accusation to the death penalty, which is not conducive to the blow to the crime of false accusation and frame-up. Because in judicial practice, some people fabricate other people's criminal facts, instead of reporting them to the judicial organs or relevant units, but write fabricated criminal facts as leaflets or posters to distribute or post them everywhere, thus causing the judicial organs to pursue the criminal investigation of the relevant personnel. If the object of accusation is limited to state organs or relevant units, such cases cannot be convicted and punished for the crime of false accusation and frame-up, so that the crime cannot be punished properly and the rights of citizens cannot be effectively protected. Furthermore, from a legal point of view, Article 243 of the Criminal Law does not clearly specify the object of the accusation. Therefore, when defining the crime of false accusation and frame-up, it is not conducive to judicial practice and has no legal basis to accuse the state organs or relevant units as an essential content.
Regarding the above-mentioned controversial question, the author's answer is no, because the fabrication itself means that it is intentional and there is no negligent fabrication. It is superfluous to add the word intentionally before fabrication.
On the second question of disagreement, the author's answer is also no. Because accusation is a statutory requirement of the crime of false accusation and frame-up, it is impossible to constitute the crime of false accusation and frame-up without accusation or false accusation. The false part of the crime is untrue and fabricated, not that the accusation is false. Therefore, the statement of false "reporting" is obviously inappropriate. For the third of the above divergent questions, the author's answer is yes. Because Article 243rd of the Criminal Law is written in black and white as "the circumstances are serious", deleting these four words from the crime of false accusation and frame-up violates the provisions of the law and may expand the scope of the crime of false accusation and frame-up.
According to the above analysis, the author believes that the crime of false accusation and frame-up refers to the act of fabricating and reporting the criminal facts of others with the intention of making others subject to criminal investigation, which is serious.
Second, some elements of the crime of false accusation and frame-up
1. The object of the crime of false accusation and framing
Scholars have the following different opinions about the object of this crime:
One view is that the object of this crime is the personal rights and democratic rights of citizens, because this crime will infringe on the personal freedom and even life of the injured citizens, and damage and attack the legitimate rights and interests of citizens such as politics and reputation. Another view is that the object of this crime is a complex object, which not only violates the personal rights of citizens, but also violates the normal activities of judicial organs. This is a general view.
The third proposition holds that the object of this crime is a complex object, which not only mainly infringes on the normal criminal litigation activities of the state judicial organs and reduces the prestige of the judicial organs, but also infringes on the personal rights and democratic rights of citizens.
The author believes that the object of this crime should not include the content of citizens' democratic rights. Because, democratic rights refer to the rights enjoyed by citizens to manage the country and participate in normal social activities, mainly including the right to appeal, the right to sue, the right to report, the right to vote and the right to be elected. The crime of false accusation and frame-up refers to the act of fabricating the criminal facts of others for the purpose of making others be investigated for criminal responsibility. This kind of behavior cannot directly infringe on any of the democratic rights of the above-mentioned citizens. Therefore, it is not in line with the actual situation of this crime to regard the democratic rights of citizens as one of the contents of the object of the crime of false accusation and frame-up.
The crime of false accusation and frame-up belongs to the crime of infringing citizens' personal rights, which will undoubtedly infringe citizens' personal rights. The personal right of citizens is the social relationship between all crimes and infringement that violate the personal right of citizens. It is inaccurate to say that this social relationship is one of the direct objects of the crime of false accusation and frame-up. The content of the personal rights directly infringed by the crime of false accusation and frame-up should be the citizen's right of personality and reputation, because the person who commits this crime fabricates other people's criminal facts to report it, which will inevitably degrade other people's personality and damage their reputation.
The content of the object of the crime of false accusation and frame-up should include the normal activities of judicial organs. Because the crime of false accusation and framing is to put non-existent criminal facts or criminal acts committed by others on the victim's head, the judicial organs will react in one way or another after receiving or discovering false accusations. Some of them will find that the criminal facts cannot be established after review, so they will not file a case, while others will file a case for investigation and even make a guilty verdict. No matter how the judiciary reacts, its normal working order will be disturbed and destroyed, that is, false accusations will make the judiciary carry out activities that it should not. Therefore, the normal activities of judicial organs should occupy a place in the object of the crime of false accusation and frame-up.
2. The objective aspect of the crime of false accusation and frame-up.
The objective aspect of this crime is the act of fabricating other people's criminal facts and reporting them. Specifically includes the following aspects:
First, the perpetrator fabricated the facts of the crime. The so-called fabrication of criminal facts means that the facts fabricated by the perpetrator objectively conform to the constitution of a specific crime stipulated in China's criminal law, rather than the facts that the perpetrator subjectively considers to be a crime. If the perpetrator thinks that he has fabricated a criminal fact, but in fact it does not conform to the constitution of the specific crime stipulated in the criminal law, then it cannot constitute the crime of false accusation and frame-up. This situation is usually manifested in the following situations in judicial practice: First, the actor thinks that he has fabricated criminal facts, but in fact it is a general illegal act. If the perpetrator thinks that stealing 200 yuan's property constitutes theft, it is a fabrication of this fact. Second, the actor thinks that he has fabricated criminal facts, but it is actually immoral. If you think adultery is a crime and make it up. Third, the actor thinks that he has fabricated criminal facts, but it is actually a legal act. If the actor thinks that it is a criminal fact to buy goods from state-owned stores and resell them at a higher price on the spot, it is fabricated. Although the above-mentioned first and second acts do not constitute a crime, they are still acts that damage the personality and reputation of others. If it is fabricated or disseminated, if the circumstances are not serious, it may be given criticism and education or appropriate administrative sanctions; Those who meet the conditions of libel, if the circumstances are serious, can be punished as libel. The third kind of behavior is not harmful to society, and neither criminal investigation nor other punishment can be given. The fabrication of criminal facts can be made out of nothing, and the so-called criminal facts that do not exist can be imposed on others. For example, there was no theft at all, and there was no theft case objectively, but the perpetrator fabricated public and private property with the value of 1000 yuan stolen by others. It is also possible to exaggerate the common illegal acts that exist objectively to the extent of crime. For example, others only stole public and private property worth tens of yuan, but the actor deliberately exaggerated the value of public and private property to several thousand yuan. It can also be to plant a criminal act committed by oneself or a third party on the victim's head. For example, a robbery crime did happen somewhere, and the perpetrator knowingly planted the crime on the victim.
In the theory of criminal law, there are different views on whether it is necessary to fabricate all the criminal facts for the constitution of the crime of false accusation and frame-up. Some people think that the crime of false accusation and framing is to fabricate the whole criminal fact and report it to the relevant authorities. Some people think that "all the facts reported are untrue or only one is untrue, which is only a difference in degree, and it is difficult to understand the responsibility of the crime (false accusation)." In my opinion, deliberately exaggerating a general illegal act into a criminal act to expose it can also lead to the criminal investigation of the false accuser by the judicial organs. Therefore, this situation cannot be ruled out as a crime. Therefore, it is inappropriate to think that the constitution of this crime must be to fabricate all the criminal facts.
In addition, if fabricating criminal facts is enough to make judicial staff think that they are suspected of a certain crime, it is not required to fabricate specific details of the crime. For example, someone will twist someone who is walking behind him to the police station and tell the police on duty at the police station: "I caught a robber!" " "After the police on duty interrogated a certain B, they thought that a certain B did not constitute robbery and was released. Here, although A did not fabricate the specific facts of B's robbery, such as the method and amount of robbery, the fabricated facts made the police on duty think that B's behavior was suspected of robbery and questioned that A's behavior constituted the crime of false accusation and frame-up. Some people think that in this case, A fabricated a crime, not a criminal fact, which is incorrect, because "robbery" is a factual description, not a statement of a crime, and there is no such charge in the criminal law.
Secondly, the actor must fabricate the criminal facts of a specific person. The way to specify a specific person can be to specify Tao's surname or not, but it can be clearly seen from the fabricated facts who it refers to. The specific object can be a specific individual, a specific number of people, a specific natural person or a specific unit. If the perpetrator only fabricates some criminal facts without specifying who did it, it cannot constitute the crime of false accusation and frame-up.
The object of this crime is limited to the express provisions of the criminal law. For example, only state-owned units can be the subject of the crime of dividing state-owned assets privately, and correspondingly only state-owned units can be the object of false accusation and frame-up in this crime, while non-state-owned units cannot be the object of false accusation and frame-up in this crime. Therefore, the scope of the target unit of the crime of false accusation and frame-up is generally not allowed to be determined. But what kind of natural person can be the object of this crime is a problem worth studying. One view is that because the law has no restrictions on the object of framing, the object of framing can be any citizen. This means that people who have not reached the age of criminal responsibility or have no criminal responsibility ability can also become the object of this crime. Another view is that the object of the perpetrator's false accusation and frame-up must be someone who can bear criminal responsibility or disciplinary responsibility in law, in order to constitute this crime.
The author thinks that the question whether a person who has not reached the age of criminal responsibility or has no criminal responsibility ability can become the object of this crime should not be answered positively or negatively. Although Article 243 of China's criminal law does not explicitly limit the object of frame-up, it only uses the abstract concept of "others", but it cannot be considered that all living natural persons can be the object of this crime. The theory of criminal law must combine the characteristics of the crime of false accusation and frame-up when explaining the "others" stipulated in criminal law. One of the most remarkable characteristics of the crime of false accusation and frame-up is that the act of false accusation and frame-up can not directly cause some damage to the object, but makes innocent people be investigated and punished by fabricating criminal facts and pretending to be the responsibility of the judicial organs. However, people under the age of 14 will not bear criminal responsibility no matter what harmful acts they commit. Therefore, when the perpetrator fabricates criminal facts and falsely accuses a person under the age of 14, he knows it himself and the local judicial staff knows it, and it will not cause the judicial organs to investigate and deal with it anyway. In this case, people under the age of 14 cannot be the object of this crime. People who have reached the age of 14 but under the age of 16 are only criminally responsible for eight crimes, such as intentional homicide, intentional injury, serious injury or death, rape, robbery, drug trafficking, arson, explosion and poisoning. Therefore, only by fabricating these eight charges and falsely accusing people who are over 14 years old but under 16 years old can they. When the perpetrator fabricates criminal facts other than the above eight crimes and falsely accuses a person who is known by himself and is known by local judicial staff 14 or above 16 or below, it is impossible for judicial organs to prosecute him. In this case, people aged above 14 and below 16 cannot be the object of this crime. Only when the perpetrator deliberately says that the person who has not reached the age of criminal responsibility has reached the age of criminal responsibility, or mistakenly believes that the person who has not reached the age of criminal responsibility has reached the age of criminal responsibility, can he be investigated by the judicial organs by fabricating criminal facts. In this case, people who have not reached the age of criminal responsibility can become the object of this crime. Therefore, whether a person who has not reached the age of criminal responsibility can become the object of this crime cannot be generalized, but should be analyzed in detail.
The situation of mental patients is complicated, some symptoms are not obvious, and they have never been diagnosed as mental illness. But through judicial expertise, it is determined that they are mentally ill because of false accusations in criminal proceedings, and they are not responsible. In this case, false accusation and frame-up should be treated as a crime. However, if a person is a well-known mental patient diagnosed as incapacitated by the relevant institution, the local judicial organ also knows this, and the perpetrator also knows this situation, but the perpetrator fabricates the criminal facts and falsely accuses the person. In this case, the behavior of the actor cannot constitute the crime of false accusation and frame-up. Therefore, whether a mental patient without criminal responsibility can become the object of this crime should also depend on the specific circumstances.
In a word, not all natural persons can be the object of this crime.
Finally, the perpetrator must carry out the prosecution. A person who fabricates criminal facts and points out a specific object without reporting it cannot constitute the crime of false accusation and frame-up. Because in this case, it is impossible to cause the judicial organs to pursue the criminal investigation of a specific object. As for who to report to can constitute the crime of false accusation and frame-up, some people think that only reporting to the judicial organ or the unit or organ where it belongs can constitute the crime of false accusation and frame-up. The author believes that it is not appropriate to make such narrow restrictions on who to report, no matter who to report, as long as it is enough to cause the judicial organs to pursue the framed object criminally, it can constitute a crime. For example, you can report to the public, procuratorial and legal organs, other state organs or organizations, and relevant personnel. There are many ways to report: it can be oral or written; It can be that the actor directly exposes the behavior, or that he uses people he doesn't know or even the news media to expose it.
Thirdly, the boundary analysis of the crime of false accusation and frame-up
1. The boundary between the crime of false accusation and frame-up and non-crime
(1) The boundary between this crime and false accusation and false accusation. Paragraph 3 of Article 243rd of the Criminal Law stipulates that false accusation or false accusation does not constitute this crime. The key to the difference between this crime and the crime of false accusation or false accusation lies in their different subjective intentions. The former has the intention of falsely accusing and framing, while the latter has no intention of falsely accusing and framing. The key to judge whether the perpetrator has the intention of false accusation and frame-up depends on whether the perpetrator knows that the reported criminal facts are false and reports them knowing that they are false, so that it can be concluded that the perpetrator has the intention of false accusation and frame-up and his behavior constitutes this crime; On the other hand, if the perpetrator doesn't know that the reported criminal facts are false, but thinks they are true, this is a cognitive error, which determines that the perpetrator has no intention of falsely accusing or framing subjectively, and his behavior cannot constitute this crime, but belongs to false accusation and false accusation.
(2) The boundary between this crime and general false accusation and frame-up violations. The similarities between the two are as follows: they are all deliberately fabricated facts to report. The difference between the two should be seen from two aspects: first, it depends on whether the perpetrator fabricates criminal facts or general illegal acts. If he fabricates criminal facts, it may constitute a crime; If a false accusation is a general illegal act, it constitutes a false accusation against a general illegal act. The second is to look at the plot of fabricating criminal facts. According to the provisions of Article 243rd of the Criminal Law, not all acts of fabricating other people's criminal facts to report crimes constitute crimes, but only those with serious circumstances constitute crimes. Serious circumstances refer to serious fabricated criminal facts, bad framing methods and serious consequences. If the facts of the crime are fabricated and reported, but the circumstances are not serious, it is a general illegal act of false accusation and frame-up.
2. Accomplished and attempted crime of false accusation.
There are several different views on the accomplished standard of the crime of false accusation and frame-up:
Some people think that the accomplishment of this crime is based on the criminal punishment of the framed object.
Others think that this crime is an act of crime. As long as it is a fabricated and reported fact, regardless of whether the judicial organ has criminally investigated the victim, this crime has been completed.
Others believe that the boundary between the accomplished and attempted crime of false accusation and frame-up lies in whether the relevant authorities have received the false accusation materials or listened to the oral information, whether the relevant authorities have accepted or reviewed the materials after receiving the false accusation materials, and whether they have started to investigate or file a lawsuit, which has no influence on the accomplished crime. Specifically, if you report fabricated facts to a state organ or relevant organization, whether it is an oral report or a written report, it must be that the state organ or relevant organization has received or heard the false accusation materials; Intentional planting of forged evidence must be accomplished when the state organ or relevant organization discovers the planting evidence; Spreading fabricated facts about a person's crime to the public, if the judicial organ knows the fabricated facts, it will be regarded as accomplished.
In my opinion, the standard of determining the accomplishment of this crime should be whether the false accusation and frame-up actually damaged the personality right and reputation right of the framed person. Actual damage constitutes accomplished crime; Otherwise, it constitutes attempted crime. According to this principle, the standard of accomplishment of this crime should be that the false accusation and frame-up has caused the judicial organs to take certain actions against the framed person, which can be interrogation or investigation of the framed person. Because only when the judiciary began to take action against the framed person, the right of personality and reputation of the framed person was really infringed. If the perpetrator fabricated the facts of the crime and reported it, but the judicial organs did not accept the perpetrator's untrue words and did not take action against the framed person, it means that the framed person's right of personality and reputation was not actually damaged, but only directly threatened, so it can only be an attempted crime. Accordingly, the above three views are not appropriate enough. The first view is that the standard of accomplishment of this crime is that the framed person has been actually punished, which is too strict, which will lead to the indulgence of false accusation and frame-up, which is not conducive to protecting citizens' personality rights and reputation rights. The second and third viewpoints grasp the standard of accomplished crime too broadly, so that those framed acts that have not actually damaged the personality right and reputation right of the framed person but are actually threatened are treated as accomplished crimes, which is unfair to the criminals.
3. The boundary between the crime of false accusation and libel
Defamation refers to fabricating facts, spreading facts, damaging the personality and reputation of others, and the circumstances are serious. This crime and libel have something in common: they both infringe on citizens' right of personality and reputation; Objectively, there are acts of fabricating facts; The subject is a general subject and can only be composed of people who have reached the age of 16; The subjective form of crime is intentional. The difference between them is as follows: (1) The objects are not exactly the same. The object of the crime of defamation can be either a person who has reached the age of criminal responsibility and has criminal responsibility ability, or a person who has not reached the age of criminal responsibility or has no criminal responsibility ability; People who have not reached the age of criminal responsibility or have no criminal responsibility ability sometimes cannot be the object of this crime. (2) There are significant differences in objective aspects. This crime fabricates criminal facts, while libel is usually a fact that is harmful to the personality and reputation of others besides fabricating criminal facts. In addition, this crime is usually to report fabricated criminal facts to relevant organs, units or individuals, while libel is to openly spread fabricated facts in society. (3) Subjectively, the content and purpose of criminal intent are different. The subjective intention of this crime is knowing that it is a criminal fact fabricated and reported by oneself, and its criminal purpose is to make others be investigated for criminal responsibility; On the other hand, the intention of libel is a non-criminal fact that knowingly damages the personality and reputation of others. Its purpose is not to make others subject to criminal investigation, but to make others' personality and reputation suffer less damage than criminal investigation.
4. The limit of the number of crimes of falsely accusing and framing.
There are two main problems worth studying about the limit of the number of crimes of false accusation and frame-up:
First, whether to plant one's criminal behavior on others, or to punish one crime, or to punish several crimes together.
In this regard, there are different opinions in theory: one opinion holds that there is a connection between the purpose and means of planting and framing, so when dealing with it, misdemeanors should be absorbed as felony according to the principle of implicated offense. Another view is that planting is to prepare for the frame-up, so the crime of false accusation and frame-up should be determined according to the act of implementation, that is, the frame-up act. The third view is that the handling of cases of planting and framing cannot be generalized, but should be analyzed in detail and treated differently. If you plant and frame others simply for the purpose of framing, you will only bear a crime of false accusation and framing; If the perpetrator subjectively has both the intention of framing and the purpose or intention of committing other crimes, then he should be punished for several crimes; If the perpetrator plants and frames others to escape his own guilt after committing other crimes, he should also be punished for several crimes.
The author believes that the above three viewpoints deserve further study. The first view holds that all plant and frame-up are the relationship between means and purpose, which is inconsistent with objective reality. In judicial practice, in some cases, the perpetrator did not intend to frame others before committing the crime, but planted others after committing the crime to avoid guilt. In this case, the means and the purpose have nothing to do, because the perpetrator did not regard his own criminal behavior as a means to frame others at the beginning. Therefore, it is generally believed that the means and purpose of crime are one-sided with the planting of others. Therefore, a case of committing a crime first and then planting others cannot be handled as an implicated offender. The second view is that planting is to prepare for a frame-up, which is too absolute. As mentioned above, sometimes it is only after the perpetrator commits a crime that he thinks of putting the blame on others. There is no doubt that the former is preparing for the latter. The second view is based on the view that planting is to prepare for framing, and it is concluded that planting and framing cases are based on the principles of absorption and behavior preparation, and it is even more inappropriate to be convicted and punished for false accusation and framing. Because the crime of false accusation and frame-up is not a very serious crime, its statutory punishment is not particularly heavy. If any criminal act is planted on others after its implementation, it will inevitably connive at criminals and make the crime and punishment seriously unbalanced. For example, it is extremely unreasonable for a person to be convicted and punished for false accusation and frame-up. Therefore, the case of committing a crime first and then planting others must not be handled according to the principle that the framed act absorbs the previous criminal act. The third view holds that the case of planting and framing should be analyzed in detail and treated as one crime and several crimes respectively, which is correct. However, if the perpetrator plants and frames others only for the purpose of false accusation and frame-up, it is inappropriate to convict him only for the crime of false accusation and frame-up. Because the crime committed by the actor first may be more serious than the crime of false accusation and frame-up, if the actor commits a crime more serious than the crime of false accusation and frame-up for the purpose of false accusation and frame-up, and then plants it on others, only the crime of false accusation and frame-up is considered inappropriate and should be treated as one of the felonies.
In short, cases of planting and framing others after committing a crime should be handled differently according to different situations: if the perpetrator commits a crime first and then reports it for the purpose of framing others, he should be convicted of a felony among the implicated offenders and given a heavier punishment; If the perpetrator did not initially falsely accuse and frame others, but planted them in order to escape the guilt after committing a crime, then he should be punished according to several crimes.
Second, after the perpetrator fabricated the criminal facts of others and reported them, whether the crime of perjury is a crime or a combination of several crimes in the litigation activities of the judicial organs to investigate the criminal responsibility of the framed person.
In this regard, some people think that it is not appropriate to convict separately, but only for the crime of false accusation and frame-up, because the crime of false accusation and frame-up is not only harmful, but also can absorb and shelter perjury. The author agrees that this kind of situation should be convicted and punished as a crime, because the perpetrator's perjury in criminal proceedings to prove the establishment of his fabricated crime is the inevitable result of his first false accusation and frame-up, and there is an inevitable relationship between the two. However, it is debatable that the crime of false accusation and frame-up is harmful and can absorb and tolerate perjury. No matter according to the criminal law before the amendment or according to the current criminal law, this conclusion is too absolute. 1979 article 138 of the criminal law stipulates that the crime of falsely accusing and framing shall be given criminal punishment according to the nature, circumstances, consequences and sentencing standards of the crime of falsely accusing and framing. 1979 the statutory penalty for perjury in the criminal law is fixed-term imprisonment of not more than two years or criminal detention; If the circumstances are serious, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 2 years but not more than 7 years. Accordingly, if the statutory penalty of the crime of falsely accusing and framing others is lower than that of perjury, it is no problem for the act of falsely accusing and framing to absorb perjury. For example, if a state functionary is falsely accused of violating the customs and habits of ethnic minorities and giving false testimony in criminal proceedings, it is obviously inappropriate to be convicted and punished for the crime of false accusation and framing. Because 1979, Article 147 of the Criminal Law stipulates that the penalty for the crime of violating the customs and habits of ethnic minorities is fixed-term imprisonment of not more than two years or criminal detention, and the maximum legal penalty for the above-mentioned perjury crime is fixed-term imprisonment of seven years, obviously, the crime of false accusation and framing is neither more harmful than the crime of perjury, nor can it tolerate or absorb the crime of perjury. Although the current criminal law has revised the statutory punishment of the crime of false accusation and frame-up, that is, it no longer refers to the statutory punishment of the crime of false accusation and frame-up, but provides an independent statutory punishment, according to the provisions of the current criminal law, the harm of the crime of false accusation and frame-up is not necessarily greater than the crime of perjury, thus accommodating and absorbing the crime of perjury. According to Article 243rd of the current Criminal Law, the first sentencing range of the crime of false accusation and frame-up is fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention or public surveillance; The sentencing range that causes serious consequences is more than 3 years 10 years. However, the penalty for perjury stipulated in Article 305 of the current criminal law is generally fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention; If the circumstances are serious, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 3 years but not more than 7 years. Compared with the other two, the statutory penalty for false accusation and framing without serious consequences is lower than the first and second sentencing ranges of perjury. Therefore, in criminal proceedings, it is not possible to define the crime of false accusation and frame-up in all cases of fabricating other people's criminal facts and then perjury, otherwise it will condone the crime. The correct way is to convict and punish the crime of false accusation or perjury according to the specific circumstances. Specifically, if the false accusation and frame-up cause serious consequences, it will be convicted and punished for the crime of false accusation and frame-up and absorb the crime of perjury; If the false accusation has not caused serious consequences, it shall be convicted and punished for perjury, and the false accusation shall be absorbed.