不阻止他人故意犯罪的行为性质认定

Appraising the Criminal Liability for Failure to Prevent Intentional Offense of Others

作为义务者不阻止他人故意犯罪的行为性质认定,其核心是判断成立正犯还是共犯。对此,义务犯模式不论是在理论自洽性还是结论合理性方面,都存在致命不足,不宜在我国适用;而因果关系模式,尤其其中的广义行为支配理论则在保证正犯、共犯区分标准适用的一致性和客观性方面,具有其优越性。据此,作为者原则上支配着结果的实现进程,不作为者原则上只能成立片面帮助犯(例外成立片面共同正犯);但是,作为者实行终了后不防止犯罪结果发生者,则原则上成立正犯。同时,即使刑法中存在"帮助行为正犯化"的特殊规定,也仍需要具体情况具体分析,不排除作为义务人成立片面共犯的可能。

The major problem in appraising the criminal liability for failure to prevent intentional of- fense of others is the distinction of perpetration and participation. On this issue, the mode of Pflichtdelikt has fatal weakness in the self--consistency as well as in the reasonableness of the conclusion, thus it should not be adopted in China. In the meanwhile, the mode of causation, especially the theory of control of the crime in a broader sense has advantages in consistency and objectivity of the criterion of the distinc- tion of perpetration and participation. Accordingly, the person who conducts an action controls the causal course in principle, while the person who conducts an omission is normally deemed as a unilateral aider and exceptionally as a unilateral co--perpetrator. However, the person who does not prevent the result after the active perpetration of others should also deemed as a perpetrator. Moreover, even if a legal fic- tion of perpetration exists, a case--by--case approach should still be adopted, because the person who bears a duty to act could he a unilateral perpetrator.