《刑法》第27条“起次要作用的人”的教义学阐释

Doctrinal Interpretation of "Persons with A Secondary Role" in Article 27 of Criminal Code

妥当确定从犯的范围,对于适当量刑至关重要。实务上对于《刑法》第27条规定的在共同犯罪中起次要作用的从犯通常不予认可;理论上也有人认为该规定是多余的。但上述认识值得商榷。应当以犯罪支配说确定正犯,再对共犯人进一步细分其作用大小。在共同犯罪中,对“起次要作用的人”的判断主要是事实判断,其判断以涉及责任刑的事实为审查重点,由于共同犯罪是违法事实,在“共同犯罪中”意味着认定“起次要作用的人”以本次犯罪的违法事实为基础,主观的责任事实则辅助性地予以考虑,属于预防刑的事实不能作为区分主从犯的依据。从类型分析的角度看,《刑法》第27条“起次要作用的人”包括起次要作用的(共同)正犯、个别共谋共同正犯、绝大多数教唆犯。

To correctly tell the prime culprit apart from the accessory and properly identify the scope of the accessory is of critical importance to appropriate sentencing.Nevertheless,accomplice of this type is usually not recognized in practice.Theoretically,some believe that the specification of Article 27 of The Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China on the person that plays a secondary role is unnecessary.The above ideas both require further discussions.To distinguish the principal offender from the accomplice,one should make a substantial judgment based on the theory of crime domination The follow-up judgment of the role of the prime culprit and accessory should be further segmented on the basis of labor distribution and classification.In the joint crime,The judgment regards the facts related to the liability punishment as the focus of review.Since the joint crime is an illegal fact,it means that to identify the person that plays a secondary role in a joint crime can be based on illegal facts of this crime.The subjective liable facts can be considered accessorily.As to facts of the preventative punishment,they cannot serve as the basis for judgment.From the perspective of type analysis,the person that plays the secondary role as defined by Article 27 of The Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China might be the(joint) criminal offender,collusive coprincipal in the minority,and abettor in the absolute majority that play a secondary role.