What is the difference between the crime of obstructing testimony and the crime of sheltering?

Netizen asked: What is the difference between the crime of obstructing testimony and the crime of sheltering? Lawyer Harbin answered: According to Article 3 10 of the Criminal Law, the crime of shielding refers to the act of falsely proving that you are a criminal. There are similarities between the crime of obstructing testimony and the crime of shielding, for example, the subjective aspect of crime can only be intentional, and it can only be direct intentional; Both crimes have violated the normal activities of the judicial organs; The subject of crime is the general subject. But the difference between the two crimes is also obvious, which is mainly reflected in the following points: 1. The direct object of crime is different. Although the direct object of the two crimes is a simple object, the former crime has been violated by the normal litigation activities of the judicial organs; The latter crime violates the normal criminal prosecution and penalty execution activities of judicial organs. 2. The objective aspect of crime has different manifestations. The former crime is manifested in preventing witnesses from testifying or instructing others to commit perjury by means of violence, threats and bribery. The latter crime is manifested as a person who knowingly commits a crime and perjures himself to cover it up. 3. The subjective elements of crime are different. There is no special emphasis on the subjective aspect of the crime of obstructing testimony in the provisions of criminal law. The subjective aspect of the latter crime is particularly emphasized in the criminal law: that is, the actor must know that the object of asylum is the criminal, and if he does not know this, it should not objectively constitute the crime of sheltering. Although there are obvious differences between the two crimes, there is still confusion about how to distinguish them under the following circumstances. What should the perpetrator A do if he uses violence, threats, bribery and other methods to instruct B to give false evidence to the judicial organs to cover up criminals? In our opinion, the key here is to confirm B's identity. First of all, if B is a witness, expert witness, recorder and translator, in order to cover up the criminal, B falsely proves, authenticates, records and translates the important plot of the case. This situation is actually the boundary between the crime of obstruction of testimony and the crime of perjury, which has been mentioned before, and I will not repeat it here. Second, if B is a person other than a witness, an expert witness, a recorder or an interpreter, he gives false testimony to the judicial organs to cover up criminals. In this case, there should be no doubt that B constitutes the crime of harboring. However, only at the instigation of Party A did Party B act as a cover-up. Subjectively, both of them have the intention of committing a joint crime; objectively, both parties should constitute a joint crime. The question is, which crime should be decided for this crime? Is it a crime of harboring or obstructing testimony? In the last article, when talking about the crime that the perpetrator instigates witnesses, experts, recorders, translators and others to commit perjury by violent means, it is pointed out that the crime of * * having identity should be recognized as the crime of * * having identity. But here, the criminal subjects of the crime of obstructing testimony and the crime of sheltering are general subjects, and there is no real status crime, so the above theory cannot be applied. The author thinks that from the perspective of legislative evolution, the crime of obstructing testimony is a new crime when the criminal law was revised in 1997, and the crime of shielding appeared in the criminal law earlier than the crime of obstructing testimony. If the criminal law does not stipulate the crime of obstructing testimony, and anyone other than the instigated witness, expert witness, recorder or translator commits perjury with the intention of shielding criminals, the instigator and the instigated person shall be punished as the crime of shielding. However, since the current criminal law has separately convicted the act of instigating others to commit perjury, it is appropriate to convict the crime of obstruction of testimony. That is to say, in this case, Party A should still be convicted and punished for the crime of obstructing testimony; For b, it is a crime of harboring. But this also brings a problem. According to the criminal law, the statutory maximum penalty for the crime of obstructing testimony is 7 years' imprisonment; The maximum legal penalty for the crime of harboring is 10 years' imprisonment. It is suspected of indulgence to punish A for obstructing testimony, but the author can't find a more suitable solution here, which needs further study.