In order to prevent depositors from centralizing their rights, a certain place turned the depositors' health code red, regardless of whether it was 3721 or 3721. Even for those savers who haven't had a chance to defend their rights, the health code has gone red overnight. In the national epidemic situation gradually good, suddenly appear a large number of red code personnel, not only to the people troubled, but also shocked other areas of the epidemic prevention agencies in a cold sweat.
From a legal point of view, arbitrarily assigning red codes to depositors is not only a violation, but also constitutes a crime.It is advisable to abstract and distill the complex facts and raise a specific legal question: whether assigning a red code to depositors and causing depositors to be forcibly isolated constitutes the crime of illegal detention.
The act of tampering with health codes and the act of forcibly isolating people with red codes are independent but related to each other. The result of the former action is the cause of the latter. Although the mandatory quarantine is carried out in accordance with regulations, but if the health code is false, then the premise of mandatory quarantine is false, mandatory quarantine that there is no legitimacy. The use of epidemic prevention policy, through the behavior of modifying health code, causes the epidemic prevention agencies to fall into a wrong understanding and take the means of compulsory isolation to those who do not need to be isolated, so as to achieve the goal of restricting the free activities of depositors. This behavior accords with the constitutive requirements of the crime of illegal detention, and the perpetrator should be regarded as the indirect principal offender of the crime of illegal detention.
Giving depositors red codes and limiting their ability to defend their rights in accordance with the law can be a big deal. If it must be given a benefit, it is to provide criminal law theory with a real case material.