论共同正犯“部分实行全部责任”的归属逻辑——以反思“行为共同说与犯罪共同说”为中心  

On the Logic of “Part Action with Full Responsibilities” in Joint Principal Offenders——To Reflect the “Joint Crime Theory” and “Joint Behavior Theory”

作　　者：王俊[1] 冀洋[1] 

机构地区：[1]东南大学法学院,南京211189

出　　处：《北京理工大学学报（社会科学版）》2017年第2期123-128,135,共7页Journal of Beijing Institute of Technology：Social Sciences Edition

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学研究规划基金资助项目"刑法出罪机制问题研究"(15YJA820015)

摘　　要：共同正犯之"部分实行全部责任"的根据在于参与人对结果的实现具有心理的因果性且共同分担了法益侵害事实,即共同性与正犯性的统一,这才是"共同正犯的本质"。行为共同说将共同正犯视为客观违法形态,不能正视"共同实行的意思"这一主观要素对于共同正犯之违法性的意义,无法区分同时犯与共同正犯。部分犯罪共同说纠结于共同正犯"犯的是哪一个罪"这种无实际意义的问题,并且在业已确定的共同正犯之外确定结果归属,不能说明"部分实行全部责任"的原理。所以,行为共同说与部分犯罪共同说不能独立承担共同正犯的认定,应当放弃这一对概念图式,而直接从"共同性·正犯性"这一真正的共同正犯本质上确定共同正犯的成立条件和责任归属逻辑。The reason for ＂part action with full responsibilities＂ in joint principal offenders is that the offenders are related to the consequences both mentally and physically, which is the nature of joint principal offense. The joint behavior theory ignores the act intention, a subjective element, and it cannot distinguish offense at the same time and offense joint together. At the same time, the joint crime theory wastes time on finding a concrete crime name that the offenders committed, which is insignificant. Therfore neither the joint behavior theory nor the joint crime theory can interpret the principal of ＂part action with full responsibilities＂ in joint principal offenders, and these two theory should be abandoned.

关 键 词：共同正犯 部分实行全部责任 行为共同说 部分犯罪共同说 

分 类 号：DF611[政治法律—刑法学]