作者：张开骏
作者介绍：上海大学法学院副教授，法学博士
出版日期：2018年12月9日
内容提要 中外刑法学的正犯认定已摒弃早期的纯粹的形式客观说,而呈现出规范化或实质化的倾向。日本刑法学界和司法实务囿于其共犯立法,为了对部分参与人合理量刑而发展出了过度实质化的正犯理论,提出了共谋共同正犯。共谋共同正犯理论受到了我国刑法学界关注,并引发了肯定与否定的对立见解。共谋共同正犯肯定论没有说服力,它对形式客观说的批评及其自身的立论理由大都难以成立,正犯过度实质化和共谋共同正犯本身存在诸多缺陷。在我国共犯立法体系下,正犯没必要过度实质化,不需要采用共谋共同正犯理论。在我国引入共谋共同正犯无法避免其固有的理论缺陷,且对我国司法实务没有实益。我国刑法学应坚持实行行为的正犯标准,对实行行为进行规范理解,结合共犯人作用和处罚原则的刑法规定,从而妥善解决共犯人的定罪和量刑问题。
关键词 共谋共同正犯 主犯 实行犯 实行行为
Abstract: The determination of the perpetrator in Chinese and foreign criminal law has abandoned the early objective theory and presented a normative or substantial tendency. The criminal law community and judicial practice of Japan are limited to the joint crime legislation. In order to sentence reasonably, they have developed the substantial tendency of perpetrator theory and proposed the complicity co-perpetrators. Pros and cons about the complicity co-perpetrators theory exist in China. The positive standpoint is not convincing and its criticism of objective theory and arguments are difficult to establish. The substantial tendency of perpetrator and the complicity co-perpetrators have many defects. In view of joint crime legislation, the substantial tendency of perpetrator is unnecessary in Chinese criminal law, and the complicity co-perpetrators are dispensable. China adopting complicity co-perpetrators cannot avoid the inherent theoretical defect, and there is no benefit to the judicial practice. China should adhere to the standard of perpetrating act, and combine the effect of accomplice and punishment principle to solve the crime and penalty of accomplice properly.