共犯論的分則思考－－以貪污賄賂瀆職罪為例

Research on the Complicity’s Crimes Formulated in Specific Provisions: Take Embezzlement, Bribery and Crime of Malfeasance For Example

由共犯論的純理論性研究轉向分則具體共犯問題的解決，是司法實踐的迫切要求。犯罪的實體是違法與責任，可將身份區分為違法身份與責任身份，對於共犯與其身份，應堅持分別定罪說。因為缺乏違法性（包括實質的違法性）或者有責性，不處罰片面對向犯；若大量購買偽造的身份證，則有成立共犯的餘地。不阻止他人犯罪的，成立遺棄、瀆職等罪的單獨正犯與他人犯罪的幫助犯的想像競合，從一重處罰。持有型犯罪共犯的認定應慎重，巨額財產來源不明罪在實踐中難以認定為共犯，故而計算來源不明財產的數額時，不應適用“部分實行全部責任”歸責原則；家屬參與理財的，有單獨成立妨害司法罪的餘地。

Turning from pure theory study on the Complicity’s Crimes to dealing with concrete problems in the criminal law is the urgent requirement of judicial practice. Since crime is constituted by illegality and liability, status could be divided into illegal status and liability identity. We should insist the theory of conviction respectively about complicity and identity. Criminal law doesn’t punish one-sided crimes considering the lack of illegality or liability. Buying great amounts of forged ID cards is illegal. Not preventing others could be convicted in the perpetrator of crime of abandonment or official crime and assisting guilty, then the judge should choose the felony. It should be cautious to identify possession crime’s Complicity’s Crimes. It’s hard to identify the complicity in Crimes of Huge Unidentified Property in judicial practice. Calculating the amount of unidentified property shouldn’t apply the principle of ‘partly action being responsible for the whole action’. Family members participating in managing finances may be convicted in the crimes of Obstruction of justice.