The Nature Of The Abettor

The issue regards to the nature of the abettor is the relationship between the abettors and the executants, which occupies the foundational status of the theory of abettor. It is the premise of the nature of the abettor to distinguish the complicities from the executants, because it would be useless to discuss the relationship between the abettors and the executants out of the dualistic system of the executants and the narrow complicities. As to the distinction of the accomplices and the executants, there are subjective theory, objective theory and corpus delicti dominate theory. However in our jurisprudence the legislator takes the formal objective theory as the premise to define the nature of the accomplices, this article takes the same doctrine also.In the criminal jurisprudence of Continental Europe and Japan the controversy between the subordinate character theory and the independent character theory has existed for a long time. There are different theories on the nature of abettor in Chinese criminal law. The difference is that the theory of twoness is advocated and takes up leading's position in Chinese Criminal law.According to the author's opinion, the foundation of the independent character theory is doubtful that it treats the solicitation and the direct action, which is helpless to explain the nature of the assistant criminal and the punishment foundation of the solicitation of an attempt crime. The theory of twoness tries to coordinate two opposite theories regardless of the foundation of those two theories. Comparatively, the subordinate character theory is more reasonable and its objective standpoint accords with the spirit of our criminal law. On the foundation of result unworthiness theory, it will be concluded that the criminal law complicity stipulation virtually carries out to the subordinate character theory, if the criminal law is interpreted essentially, systematically and objectively. So a conclusion different to all criminal law complicity theories in the past can be reached that the item 2 of section 29 in Chinese criminal law only refers to such a situation that the man who is instigated has been carried out a crime but has not finished it. Such way of interpretation did not exceed the conceivable meaning of the text and avoid the inconsistent in ruling under the other theories.