Research On The Correspondence Offense

As an important concept in the criminal law of the continental law system, correspondence offense has its own value. Although China introduced correspondence offense, research on correspondence offense was not thorough enough. Owing to the differences in the common crime theory between China and the continental law system, there are many problems associated with the correspondence offense not to be solved. On the basis of the indispensable co-offender theoretical and the nature of the Correspondence Offense, this paper attempts to reconstruct Correspondence Offense’s proper morphology. In order to introduce the Correspondence Offense completely and systematically, the paper is divided into five chapters. In addition to analysis its structure and investigate its conditions as a crime, this paper also import the essential accomplice theory as upper concept, and make a comparison with other types of complex Correspondence Offense to show its possible participation relationship, and then explore the legal basis of its available penalties.The first chapter is an overview of the essential accomplice theory. This chapter introduces the essential accomplice theory as the upper concept of Correspondence Offense. This section briefly describes the development process of essential accomplice, and combed the academic opinion about the concept of the essential accomplice, combined with our complicity system, discusses the theoretical value and positioning system of the necessary accomplice in our country. And try to summarize the essential nature of the necessary accomplice. The author believes that the necessary accomplice is a form of common crime by the criminal law provisions which implemented in line with the constitutional elements of the complex behavior of people. In China, the introduction of the concept of necessary accomplice has a system and normative significance. The body itself is not a criminal law concept, but a functional or technical concept."Necessity-based" mainly depends on the complex of subject and does not require multiple subjects must constitute a common crime. This is the natural meaning judge of a former crime, not a factual judgment after the establishment of the crime.The second chapter is the formation structure of the Correspondence Offense. This chapter analyzes and compares the dispute about the concept of Correspondence Offense in Germany, Japan, Taiwan and mainland China. I should be drawn on the meaning of the guilty should be that several participants must remain the dominant position of the behavior of the other participants, and to participate in such a complex behavior as the main elements of a necessary accomplice form. And further analysis from the actors to Correspondence Offense, acts, evaluation condemnation to Correspondence Offense to the relationship between the formation of the structure of the core to explore the nature of the offense. I believe that the actors have to Correspondence Offense to a complex subject, and has a "functional dual role". To Correspondence Offense acts against the structure, only in the direction opposite to determine the behavior of the infrastructure committed relationship is wrong. The elements must be included actors.The behavior as a product of actors, and a form of behavior consistent and inconsistent behavior in the form of two types. In the evaluation of censure against the guilty relations, actors against the object due to inter caused by an act against common crime plus reactive behavior causes the result occurred. Not directed to the relationship to others outside of the relationship is therefore riddled internal evaluation occurs.The third chapter is the establish conditions of Correspondence Offense. To Correspondence Offense acts of consistent form into the form and behavior are two types of inconsistencies, the formation of the actors committed to each other while having a relationship between them. But in fact it is a separate embodiment of each behavior, Guilty to a crime of conditions must be disclosed separately by the respective Why the perpetrators of acts will be punished as the guilty. For two different types, from both subjective and objective aspects were discussed. Subjective analysis of the subject involved in the formation of the meaning and content of crime, and objective analysis of the subject from a different type of behavior implemented. In this chapter, will be placed in the system of criminal law to commit a crime in the evaluation. By the perpetrator has the characteristic form of behavior, characteristic of the behavior of the object as well as evaluating the relationship caused disapproval,via its causal relationship to explore where is the punishability.Chapter IV is the comparison between Correspondence Offense and other complex types. In this chapter, to commit to a clear discrimination on the structure, will be guilty of committing the same type to be involved in the complex belong to the Criminal Code to compare. And co-perpetrator of the offense, and while the indirect perpetrator guilty of committing the same type in addition to participating in the same complex outside. These four types of crime form its core essence, there is a form of body structural relationship behavior, behavior in the form of the object exists on the formation and evaluation of disapproval relations are different.Chapter V is Correspondence Offense in our country’s criminal law. In this chapter, I will criminal law provisions against the guilty into three categories according to the type of punishment."The same charges and the same penalties": Not the same charges and not the same penalties";"only one criminal penalties". And click on the category and made to commit to the relationship between the sub-systems are classified as specified in. I adopt" Compromise of doctrine" accomplice punishable, and accordingly resolved to commit on the contentious issues. Whether to Correspondence Offense the criminal law on the general principles applicable to common crime on the main accomplice provisions; Guilty of being a party to the case of the other common crime constitute coercion; One can not be punished if applicable General accomplice. Combing with the theory of earlier chapters and China’s criminal policy, we discussed several typical problems in current judicial interpretation and judicial practice.