论共犯论中的区分制与单一制理论——折衷说之探索  

The"Unitary Theory"and the"Distinguishing Theory"in Crime Participation Theory:The Proposal of Eclecticism

作　　者：杨秋野 Yang Qiuye

机构地区：[1]日本京都大学法学研究科

出　　处：《复印报刊资料（刑事法学）》2022年第7期20-35,共16页criminal law

摘　　要：在我国共犯论中存在着“区分制说”与“单一制说”的对立,但这两种学说均有不妥之处。一方面,“区分制说”不符合我国刑法典关于共犯体系的规定,其支持者主张的共同正犯概念及因果共犯论均存在较大疑问。而另一方面,尽管我国刑法典与意大利、奥地利的共犯体系有相似之处,但却并没有采用单一正犯体系和扩张的正犯概念。对于我国共犯体系问题的解决,应当在区分制与单一制理论中开辟一条折衷的道路,即立足于限缩的正犯概念,将共同正犯排除出正犯领域,同时弱化各参与形式之间的区别,以犯罪的共同性,即通过谋议和分工行为降低犯罪风险、提高犯罪遂行可能性作为所有共犯形态成立的前提。There is an argument between the“unitary theory”and the“distinguishing theory”in our crime participation theory.However,both of the theories are not reasonable.On the one hand,the“unitary theory”does not coincide with the rule of our penal law and the concept and theory of co-principle offender and“causality accomplices theory”,which is proposed by the proponent of the unitary theory,face great problems.On the other hand,although the accomplice system of our penal law is similar to that of Italy and Austria,the penal code in our country does not adopt the“unitary system”and the conception of“expanded perpetrator”.In order to solve the problem of our accomplice system,we should stand for the eclecticism,that means insisting on the conception of restrictive perpetrator and excluding“joint principal offender”from the conception of perpetrator.We should also weaken the distinction of various form of participation,and take the“connection”between the participants,namely reducing the risk of crime by complicity and division,which raises the possibility of accomplishment,as the premise for all forms of joint act.

关 键 词：区分制 单一制 扩张的正犯概念 限缩的正犯概念 共犯的处罚根据 

分 类 号：D924.1[政治法律—刑法学]