| The opposition between the differentiated system and the unitary system regarding the participation system of accomplice is exaggerated in the Chinese academic circles. With the emergence of the concepts of co-principal, indirect principal, and co-principal by conspiracy, as well as the theory of criminal domination as the standard of principal, the understanding of principal as the basis of the differentiated system has been gradually materialized, and the formal boundaries between the principal and the accomplice are close to non-existent. Especially in the accessory theory of accomplice, once the accessory theory of executing behavior, which has affinity with the theory of co-behavior as the essence of joint crime, is adopted, the participation system of accomplice will inevitably move towards a unitary system. The current unitary system, baptized by the doctrine of legal interest infringement, is no longer the product of “criminal law of the perpetrator” and “criminal law of intention”. Rather, on the premise that the behavior of each accomplice participant must be directly or indirectly related to the result of the specific constitutive elements of the crime and based on the notion that the essence of the accomplice is co-behavior, the principal is understood to be the one who provides a causal contribution to the realization of the constitutive elements. This shows that the current differentiated system and unitary system are moving towards the same direction and gradually becoming integrated. From the perspective of relevant Chinese criminal legislation and judicial practice, Chinese participation system of accomplice is close to the unitary system. Not only can this understanding reasonably explain the relevant legislation on joint crime in the Chinese criminal law, but it can also make a proper explanation for the relevant judicial interpretation of helping information network crime activities. |
京公网安备11010102006664号 京ICP备2023015853号