近年来，以侮辱、诽谤行为为主要表现形式的网络暴力事件频繁发生，网络暴力犯罪被害人往往通过向法院自诉来维护自身合法权益。然而由于被害人自身能力不足，实践中自诉效果并不理想。究其原因在于当前网络暴力案件以自诉为原则的追诉模式存在弊端。因此，如何完善现有的追诉模式，从而更好地保障被害人利益是本文要探讨的问题。本文共分四章，主要内容如下：

第一章是关于网络暴力案件的核心罪名网络侮辱、诽谤犯罪的追诉现状分析。通过对2019—2023年网络侮辱、诽谤案例数据进行统计和归纳，展示近年来网络暴力案件的追诉现状。结合具体案例，分析网络暴力案件在适用自诉和公诉程序时各自存在的问题，并归纳导致这些问题的原因。

第二章是对我国告诉才处理制度的反思。网络侮辱、诽谤罪属于告诉才处理的犯罪，改善网络暴力案件的追诉模式需先回归告诉才处理制度的内涵，探讨该制度的立法目的与存在价值。其次，归纳域外国家和地区告诉才处理案件追诉模式的基本特点，指出我国告诉才处理案件追诉难的根本原因在于学界对告诉的误解和国家公权力机关的缺位。据此，解决困境的途径在于将公权力引入到所有网络暴力案件的追诉中，变原来未达公诉标准便只能自诉的追诉模式为公诉自诉协作模式。

第三章着重研究了公诉与自诉的关系，为后文构建网络暴力案件公诉自诉协作的追诉模式提供思路。结合法条分析并概括我国公诉与自诉关系的现状，澄清公诉与自诉互相排斥对立的传统理解，认为公诉权能够适度地介入网络暴力案件，二者可以协调统一，共同发挥作用。

第四章为网络暴力案件公诉自诉动态协作模式的构建提供了具体建议。首先开宗明义地介绍设计公诉自诉协作模式需遵循的两点基本原则，并对符合公诉标准的网络暴力案件自诉转公诉问题做出回应，明确了自诉转公诉的两种情形，在现有法律规范的基础之上对自诉转公诉的程序衔接提出了完善建议。最后结合前文所得结论，提出应允许网络暴力案件被害人选择公诉和建立检察机关担当自诉制度的观点。

In recent years, online violence incidents mainly manifested in insult and defamation have occurred frequently, and victims of online violence crimes often safeguard their legitimate rights and interests by bringing a private prosecution to the court. However, due to the insufficient capabilities of the victims themselves, the effect of private prosecutions in practice is not ideal. The reason lies in the disadvantages of the current prosecution mode based on the principle of private prosecution in Internet violence cases. Therefore, how to perfect the existing prosecution mode, so as to better protect the interests of victims is the issue to be discussed in this paper. This paper is divided into four chapters, the main contents are as follows:

The first chapter is about the core charges of network violence cases, network libel, insult crime prosecution status analysis. Through the statistics and summary of the data of online insult and defamation cases from 2019 to 2023, the prosecution status of online violence cases in recent years is presented. Combined with specific cases, the paper analyzes the dilemmas of network violence cases in private prosecution and public prosecution procedures, and summarizes the reasons leading to these dilemmas.

The second chapter is a reflection on China's tell-to-deal-with system. The offences of online insult and defamation are in general offences under the criminal law, and to improve the prosecution mode of online violence cases, it is necessary to return to the connotation of the tell-to-deal-with system and explore the legislative purpose and existence value of the system. Secondly, by summarizing the basic characteristics of prosecution modes in handling cases by complaint in foreign countries and regions, it is pointed out that the fundamental reason for the difficulty in prosecuting cases handled by complaint in China lies in the academic misunderstanding of complaint and the absence of state public power organs. Accordingly, the solution to this dilemma lies in making public prosecution and private prosecution play a joint role in the prosecution of online violence cases, and changing the single private prosecution model into a collaborative public-private prosecution model.The third chapter focuses on the relationship between public prosecution and private prosecution, providing insights for the subsequent construction of a prosecution model that coordinates private and public prosecutions in cases of online violence. By analyzing relevant legal provisions and summarizing the current status of the relationship between public prosecution and private prosecution in China, this chapter clarifies the traditional understanding that private prosecution and public prosecution are mutually exclusive and opposes. It argues that the power of public prosecution can be appropriately involved in cases of online violence, and that the two can be coordinated and unified to jointly play a role. The fourth chapter provides specific suggestions for the construction of the dynamic cooperation mode of public prosecution and private prosecution in cyber violence cases. First of all, it introduces two basic principles to be followed in designing the mode of private prosecution cooperation. Secondly, combined with the conclusions obtained above, the author puts forward the view that the victims of network violence cases can not only Sue to the court, but also tell the public security and procuratorial organs. Finally, it responds to the issue of private prosecution transfer to public prosecution when network violence cases meet the public prosecution standard of "seriously endangering social order and national interests", clarifies the two situations of private prosecution transfer to public prosecution, and puts forward improvement suggestions on the procedural connection of private prosecution transfer to public prosecution on the basis of existing legal norms.