幫助信息網絡犯罪活動罪的教義學分析——共犯從屬性原則的堅守

幫助信息網絡犯罪活動罪系堵截性罪名，其設立並非對傳統共犯評價模式的否定，而僅僅是對無法按照總則中共犯規定但又有處罰必要的網絡說明行為所做的類型化的應對。在性質上，本罪屬￿刑法分則規定的特殊幫助犯，而非共犯行為的正犯化。本罪的成立，僅要求被說明對象（正犯）實施符合構成要件的違法行為即可（限制從屬性說）。依據因果共犯論，在「一對多」型共同犯罪的場合，應對各個正犯的違法的量予以累加，並據此判斷是否達到可罰的違法程度。本罪中的「幫助」，不僅指直接的幫助，也包括間接的幫助（幫助的幫助）。明知他人利用信息網絡實施電信詐騙、開設賭場等犯罪而提供說明的，屬￿上游網絡犯罪的說明犯與本罪的競合，應從一重罪處斷。掩飾、隱瞞犯罪所得、犯罪所得收益罪系在他人犯罪既遂之後對其贓物的處置，而非對本犯實施的實行行為進行協力或加功（即非事前或者事中的幫助），與違法結果之間不具有因果性，因而不能與本犯形成共犯關係。

The crime of assisting information network criminal activities is a crime of blocking. Its purpose is only a type of criminal law response to the network help behavior that cannot be punished ac- cording to the accomplice provisions in the general provisions, instead of negation of the traditional evaluation model of accomplice. In its nature, this crime still belongs to the special accessory crime prescribed in the specific provisions of the criminal law, rather than turning accomplices to principal offenders. This crime is declared only if the aided object (principal offender) commits an illegal act that meets the constitutive requirements (restrictive dependency theory). According to the causal accomplice theory, the illegality of each principal offender should be accumulated, and judge whether it reaches the punishable degree on the occasion of ''one to many'' joint crime. The term ''assisting'' in this crime refers not only to direct help, but also to indirect help (help to a helper). Those who knowingly provide assistance to others for using information networks to commit crimes such as telecom fraud and opening casinos belong to the contestation and cooperation between the accomplices of upstream network crimes and this crime, and should be punished as a felony. The crime of covering up or concealing the proceeds of crime and the proceeds of crime belongs to the ''assistance'' after the completion of another person's crime, rather than co- operate with or contribute to the execution of the act committed by the offender (i.e. not assist before or during the commission of the offence), and there is no causality between it and the result of the crime, so it cannot form an accomplice relationship with this crime.