近年来，各地频繁发生编造、故意传播虚假恐怖信息的事件，对社会秩序造成严重破坏。本文选取最高人民检察院2013年5月公布的第三批指导性案例中的三个案例为样本，总结出在理论上和实践中存在争议的问题，然后对其进行研究和探讨，对该罪在实践中应如何认定，笔者提出了自己的看法。最后，结合此类事件频发的原因，在借鉴世界其他国家的规定的基础上，提出建议。本文共分为六个部分： 第一部分介绍了案例的主要内容和争议问题。这三个案例分别是：李泽强编造、故意传播虚假恐怖信息案、卫学臣编造虚假恐怖信息案和袁才彦编造虚假恐怖信息案。笔者在本文中以三个案例为样本，是希望能够全面把握该罪。在介绍完基本案情后，笔者根据这三个案例总结出了理论上和实践中存在的四个争议问题。 第二部分对该罪的罪名认定问题进行分析。实践中有人认为该罪是选择性罪名，有的认为是并列性罪名。笔者从刑法典对该罪罪状的规定入手，提出了对该罪罪名认定的看法，并用理论知识分析了这三个案例的罪名认定问题。 第三部分是对“虚假恐怖信息”的理解与认定进行研究。对于哪些信息属于虚假恐怖信息在实践中存在不同看法，笔者在本文中提出了自己对虚假恐怖信息的内涵的理解，并提出了虚假恐怖信息的认定标准，然后运用这些特性和标准对三个案例进行了分析。 第四部分针对实践中对“严重扰乱社会秩序”和“造成严重后果”认定不一的情况，笔者提出应从哪些方面入手分析、判断犯罪结果，最后分析了《最高人民法院关于审理编造、故意传播虚假恐怖信息刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》里的相关规定。 第五部分介绍了以编造、故意传播虚假恐怖信息的方式敲诈勒索钱财的行为定性的不同观点。实践中一般按择一重罪处罚的原则进行处罚，但所依据的理论不同，有的认为构成牵连犯，有的认为构成想象竞合犯。在分别介绍了不同的观点后，笔者阐述了自己的观点，并对袁才彦编造虚假恐怖信息案进行了具体分体，意图对司法实践中相关问题的解决提供一定的借鉴和参考。　　第六部分主要是基于上述争议和该罪频发的原因进行反思，提出完善我国关于该罪的建议。在这个过程中笔者借鉴、参考了国外的相关立法和司法实践。

In recent years, the crime of fabricating and deliberately disseminating terrorist information occurred frequently. This behavior disturbed social order seriously and caused a great deal of psychological panic to the public.This article selected the third batch of guiding cases issued by the Supreme People's Procuratorate as a sample, summed up and research the controversial issues in theory and in practice, aims at providing reference for practice. At last, the author propose some suggestions. This article includes six parts: The first part mainly introduces the content of the three cases and the disputed issues.The cases are the case of Li Zeqiang fabricating and deliberately disseminating terrorist information , the case of Wei Xuechen fabricating terrorist information, the case of Yuan Caiyan fabricating terrorist information.The author discussed three cases in one paper in order to research the crime comprehensively.After introducing the cases, the author summarized disputed issues that exist in theory and practice. The second part analyse the identification of the charge. In practice, some people think it falls into selective charge, some people think it falls into parallel charge. The author firstly researched the connotation of fabricating and disseminating and the relationship of the two behaviors. And then the author put forward her own opinion. At last, the author analyzed the three cases. The third part focus on analyzing the range of the false terrorist information. There are different opinions in practice.The author list some different views and proposed her own opinion about the character and the criterion of the false terrorist information .　The fourth part is about how to judge the“ seriously disturbing social order” and “serious consequences”. In this part, the author cites the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Handling of the Crime of fabricating and deliberately disseminating terrorist information and Other Criminal Cases.　The fifth part discuss concerning the judicial application of using this crime conduct for extortion activities, including qualitative basis and specific measurement of a felony misdemeanor. The author put forward her own opinion on this question, and analyzes the case of Yuan Caiyan fabricating terrorist information. The sixth part mainly put forward proposals for the laws and regulations which based on the problems exist in the judicial practice and the reason why the crime happens frequently. This part also referent the relevant laws and regulations abroad .