以不作為參與他人的法益侵害行為的性質－－兼及不作為的正犯與幫助犯的區分

The Nature of Participating in Others' Law Interest Infringement

行為人以不作為參與他人的法益侵害行為，是否成立共同犯罪；若能成立共同犯罪，是成立不作為的共同正犯還是不作為的幫助犯，均存在爭議。相對而言，重要作用理論和因果過程支配理論具有妥當性。關於行為人以不作為參與他人的作為犯的性質，主要涉及在什麼範圍內承認犯罪阻止義務，以及在負有犯罪阻止義務者能夠履行義務而不履行時，是成立共同正犯、同時正犯還是幫助犯。應當認為，在不作為者與作為者存在共謀的場合，可以成立共同正犯；不存在共謀的，如果否認義務犯理論，應當根據是否存在事實支配關係或者行為人對法益侵害結果的發生的作用力的大小，分別成立不作為的共同正犯和幫助犯。在行為人以不作為參與他人的不作為犯的場合，根據具體情況分別成立不作為的共同正犯或者同時正犯。

There are debates on whether someone participating in violations of others' legal interests will constitufe a joint crime or not, and so on. Most scholars advocate the opinion of joint crime of nonfeasance accomplice, while some scholars advocate the opinion of abettor of nonfeasance accomplice. Two problems should be solved. Firstly, what is the extent to acknowledging the obligation to prevent the crime? Secondly, when the behavior does not fulfill the obligation to prevent the crime, should he be punished for joint crime of nonfeasance accomplice, or abettor of nonfeasance accomplice? If we deny the obligation theory, according to the crime control theory, the behavior should contitute a joint crime of nonfeasance accomplice or abettor of nonfeasance accomplice.