犯罪參與論序說——統一正犯論者的省思與期許

Theory of Criminal Participation System

我國刑法理論歷來過分追隨德日刑法理論，在犯罪參與體系的路徑選擇上，幾乎全面倒向了共犯從屬性說。這種現象表明了不少學者忽視了法教義學方法與法教義學知識的分野。而且，立足於區分制的普遍難題與個別難題的立場，只有單一制才具備合法性與合理性。換言之，我國采取共犯從屬性說，除了要克服其在域外固有的難題之外，還要克服其在中國法上的個別難題。進而言之，雖然學界存在對於統一正犯體系的形式各異的誤解與為數不少的批判，但其實它沒有如此不堪。對於統一正犯體系的考察，必須回到作為基底範疇的行為上來。通過重新厘定行為的概念，何為符合構成要件之行為的內涵得以重新界定。而且，堅持統一正犯體系，可以順暢地解決罪責自負與行為形態等諸多的難題。反觀共犯從屬性說，對實行行為的擴大評價震蕩了其標榜的緊縮的正犯概念的根基，構成要件形式解釋論視野下的傳統正犯理論之局限導致了自我無情地背叛。擴張的正犯概念與緊縮的正犯概念之二分格局出入於同一屋檐之下，構成要件符合性的判斷過程也發生了由存在到規範機能的轉向。一元犯罪參與體系，既能滿足變化多端的生活狀況，也能避免共犯從屬性說機械地理解罪刑法定原則的弊病。總之，開展犯罪參與體系理論的研究對於刑事法治化是必要的，但是只要無法克服固有難題，無法貫通理論邏輯與實踐邏輯，通過區分制解說中國法都是不恰當的路徑。

Domestic theory of criminal law has a fanatic tendency to follow up with Germany and Japanese theory, which presents in the path choice of criminal participation system, scarcely all together is apt to support the theory of complicity dependency. This phenomena has witnessed respected numbers of scholar has ignorance of the discrepancy between hermeneutics(doctrinaire) legal method and its scopes. And having rooted in common to one soluble standpoint, only through the unitary principal offender system could be proved by legality and reasonableness. By other ways, to adopted the theory of complicity dependency, not only need to get over solid problem underlie in law of the board, but some particular problem in the land. Hereby, laws circle has misunderstandings and critics to the system of unitary principal offender all long from now, but actually not worse than ones thought. In respect to observe the system of a single person, it should come back to reorder the conception of “action” and infinitely comprehend what the important action constituting a crime is. To boot, the unitary principal offender system may get many problem such as selfburden responsibility and act condition to be well solved. Yet the theory of complicity dependency by overevaluating act of perpetrating badly undermine its notable constrictive single principle conception to foundation and tradition principle one the bottom of the formal interpretation of constitutive requirements led to ruthlessly selfbetray. The process of judging conformity of important constructive conditions also interferes form facts to value, and in reality the dichotomy of amplified and constrictive single principle conception hail from common source. The unitary principal offender system can satisfy the changing life and it also avoid to stiffly comprehend “null crime sine lege”. In conclusion, neither can we get over solid problem nor throughout theory logic to Pragmatic sense. only depend on principal and accomplice dividing system  to interpret national criminal law is not valuable. So it is necessity of advancing the system of criminal participation system studies.