論不作為正犯與共犯的區分

On the Distinction of Perpetrator and Accomplice about Omission

不作為的正犯共犯區分應當與作為的正犯共犯區分適用同一標準，多元區分標 准說過於重視不作為與作為之間在存在論上的差異。我國刑法學不宜采用管轄理論。結果原因支配說在形式的機能二分說基礎上增加了實質的考察，具有較大的合理性，可以合理區分不作為的單獨正犯與共犯，以及不作為的共同正犯與共犯。自殺不救助的行為性質應當放在共犯論的延長線上來分析。據此，自殺不救助既不成立不作為的故意殺人罪的正犯，也不成立不作為的故意殺人罪的共犯（自殺幫助犯）。刑法學中有關共謀共同正犯的肯定說與否定說都沒有切中問題的要害－－司法實踐把大量的不作為的共謀共犯轉化為作為的共謀共同正犯。

The distinction of perpetrator and accomplice between omission and action should adopt the same criteria. Theory of multi-differentiating standards overemphasizes the differences of ontology between omission and action. Theory of zustandigkeit shouldn’t be accepted in China. Theory of controlling the reason of result can reasonably distinguish not only the individual perpetrator and accomplice but also the co-perpetrator and accomplice in the case of offense of omission，so it’s reasonable. The behavioral nature of not-rescuing suicide should be analyzed on the extension line of complicity theory. Accordingly, not-rescuing suicide constitutes neither the perpetrator of omission of intentional homicide nor the accomplice of that (accessory offenders of suicide).In the criminal law, both the positive theory and the negative theory about the collusive co-principal offender don’t hit the key that massive omission collusive assistant offenders have been converted into action collusive co-principal offenders in the judicial practice.