在涉性纠纷领域，往往由于当事人之间存在着较为敏感的关系，维权行为与敲诈勒索罪的界定问题不仅在刑法学界存在一定程度的争议，并且容易引起社会大众的激烈争论。具体而言，关于维权行为的正当权利基础范畴，道德权利是否属于维权的正当权利基础，同案不同判问题时有发生。此外，在敲诈勒索罪的定性判断上也未达成一致，对于手段行为的含义、方式、内容以及欺骗与胁迫并存的索财行为的判断等问题的理解都存在争议。同时此类案件常见的抗辩主张和量刑情节“被害人过错”在我国刑法中更是缺乏系统的讨论。本文结合国内外相关研究成果，以女辅警敲诈勒索案为例，对该案中争议焦点蕴含的法理问题进行探讨。

道德权利先于法律权利诞生，也是权益被写入制定法的依据，只是未被制定法一一载明，道德权利具有维权行为的权利基础正当性，但“未被法律确认的道德权利”的维权范围应仅限于“侵权人因违反法定义务而具有道德过错”的情形，且损害赔偿请求权应通过丰富精神损害赔偿的适用情形得以行使。在此范畴下，本案被告人许某并不具有正当权利来主张救济。在定罪方面，“以恶害相通告”和“产生恐惧心理”均应做实质解释，敲诈行为的悖论问题应通过“双重剥削理论”划定入罪范围；关于欺骗与胁迫并存的索财行为的判断问题，在均符合诈骗行为和敲诈勒索行为客观要件的前提，当对被害人心理状态的认定无法达到主客观一致时，应根据存疑时有利于被告人原则，以轻罪论处。本案中依行为是否会对被害人造成严重损害进而产生恐惧心理为据，“被告人母亲讨要说法”不构成敲诈勒索行为；“被告人母亲闹事”“向单位揭发检举”构成敲诈勒索行为；而“告知被害人妻子通奸关系”需结合被害人家庭关系具体判断。另外本案被告人索要数额超出合理范畴，不会让被害人因陷入认识错误而自愿交付财物，因此无法构成诈骗罪，应认定为敲诈勒索罪。

       量刑方面，对被害人过错情节，应将责任分担说和谴责性降低说综合运用以解释该情节影响刑事责任的理论依据。对被害人过错情节的认定路径可结合正当防卫的构成条件来构建，具体涉及四个条件：（一）前提条件需满足不法性、侵害性和现实性。不法性包含三类行为：犯罪行为，一般违法行为，侵害法益的不道德行为。侵害性要求过错行为必须对法益产生威胁。现实性要求过错行为必须是客观存在的。（二）时间条件要求被告人的犯罪行为与被害人的过错行为在时间上具有比较紧密的关联性。（三）主观条件要求被告人实施犯罪行为时需存在回应认识与回应意志。（四）对象条件要求被告人必须针对过错行为实施者本人实施犯罪行为。在本案中，被害人与被告人许某的通奸行为因不满足前提条件中的不法性与侵害性而不构成被害人过错情节。二审裁判刑罚在合理范围之内。

In the field of sexual disputes, due to the sensitive relationship between the parties, there are controversies on the definition of rights protection and extortion in the criminal law field, and is easy to cause fierce debate in the public. Specifically, as for the category of the legitimate right base of the action of safeguarding rights and whether moral rights belong to the legitimate right base of safeguarding rights, different judgments in the same case often occur. There is also no agreement on the qualitative judgment of the crime of extortion, and there are differences in the understanding of the meaning, method and content of the means and the judgment of the extortion behavior coexisting with deception and coercion. At the same time, such common defense claim and sentencing circumstances "victim fault" in China's criminal law is lack of systematic discussion. Based on the female auxiliary police extortion case and combined with relevant research results at home and abroad, this paper discusses the legal issues contained in the controversial focus of the case.

Moral rights are born prior to legal rights, and are also the basis for rights and interests to be written into enacted laws. Although they have not been stipulated in enacted laws, moral rights should be the legitimate right basis for safeguarding rights. However , the scope of safeguarding the moral right which has not been confirmed by law is only limited to the infringer’s moral fault due to the violation of legal obligations, and the way of exercising the right of compensation for damages should be advocated by enriching the adaptation of spiritual damages compensation. In this case, the defendant xu does not have a legitimate right to advocate relief. On this basis, in terms of conviction, "to inform each other of evil" and "to generate fear" should be explained substantively. The paradox of extortion behavior should be explained by the definition of "double exploitation theory". Under the premise of satisfying the objective manifestation of fraud and extortion, when the psychological state of the victim cannot reach the subjective and objective consistency, the misdemeanor should be determined according to the principle of benefiting the defendant when in doubt. this case, according to whether the behavior will cause serious damage to the victim and then generate fear, "the defendant's mother to ask for the story" does not constitute blackmail; "The defendant's mother making trouble" and "exposing to the unit" constitute an act of extortion; However, "informing the victim's wife of adultery" needs to be combined with the victim's family relationship to make a specific judgment. In addition, the amount required by the defendant in this case is beyond the reasonable range, so that the victim will not voluntarily deliver property due to the error of understanding, so it cannot constitute a crime of fraud, should be identified as the crime of extortion.

In terms of sentencing, the theoretical basis of the influence of the victim's fault circumstances on criminal responsibility should apply the theory of responsibility sharing and blame reduction comprehensively. The identification path of the victim's fault circumstance can be constructed based on the constitution of justifiable defense, which can be divided into four conditions:(1) The prerequisite condition has three characteristics: illegal, invasive and realistic. Illegality includes three kinds of behaviors: criminal behavior, general illegal behavior, and immoral behavior that infringes on legal interests; Invasiveness requires that the defendant's behavior must threaten legal interests; Reality requires that the behavior of the defendant must be objective. (2) The time condition requires that the criminal behavior of the defendant is closely related to the fault behavior of the victim in time. (3) The subjective condition requires that the defendant must have the awareness and willingness to the fault. (4) The object condition requires that the defendant to commit the crime against the fault implementer himself. In this case, the victim and the defendant Xu adultery does not meet the premise of the unlawful and invasive and does not constitute the victim's fault. The penalty of the second trial is within a reasonable range.