The analysis of more than 100 real cases in recent years reveals that there are some problems in judicial practice, such as fuzzy identification of “false information”, absence of subjective element identification and different identification of outcome elements. In order to implement the concept of modesty and protection of human rights in criminal law, it is necessary to specify the meaning of the objective elements—the “false information”, and identify comprehensively the subjective elements—“really knowing”— according to the number of times the perpetrator has committed crimes, whether the perpetrator has profited, and their identity and experience. In order to avoid the pocket-like application of the crime and achieve a reasonable and well-founded one, a substantive determination of whether any harm is caused should be carried out after distinguishing the network field for the result element—“causing serious public disorder”.