不作为参与理论的反思与构建

Criminal Omission Participation Theory :Reflection and Construction

目前对于不作为参与主要存在两种思考路径:一是以义务犯理论为中心的路径,一是以法益侵害为中心的支配犯的路径。义务犯理论的解决路径与我国刑法的规定并不契合。在支配犯框架下思考不作为参与问题是正确的解决之道,但现有的支配犯下的各种观点多有不足。根据保证人义务的类型来判断正犯的区别理论有其可取之处,但需对其进行一定的修正,使其避免义务犯理论的通病,同时能够受到犯罪支配论的制约。不作为的参与的定性,应坚持修正的区别理论,即当保证人对被害人的无助状态存在保护支配时,保证人的不作为成立正犯;当保证人对作为人的侵害行为存在监护支配时,保证人的不作为成立共犯。

At present, there are two kinds of thinking paths for the criminal omission participation： the path of obligation crime theory and the path of the dominant crime centered with legal interest violation. The solution path of the obligation crime theory does not conform to the provisions of Chinese Criminal Law, and therefore should be discarded. It is the right way to think about the problem of omission participation in the framework of dominant crime. However, various opinions on dominant crime have their own deficiencies. It is desirable to judge the principal offender according to the types of guarantor obligations in the German and Japanese literature. It, nonetheless, needs to be amended to avoid the common fault of the theory of obligation crime and to be subject to crime dominance. Finally, the difference theory can be amended to deal with the problem of non-participation. When the guarantor is in a protective position towards the helpless state of the victim, his non-participation makes him a principal offender. The guarantor is an accomplice when he is in a custodial position towards infringement act.