On The Relationship Between Correspondence Offense And Chinese Theory Of Joint Offense

Correspondence Offense is a concept of mainland criminal law which summarized one kind of special crime type in the criminal law. The mainland criminal law has conducted a quite thorough research to this kind of crime, and has had plenty of substantial academic achievement. In contrast, our country's criminal law theory actually rarely has the research on it. There are a lot of this kind of crimes in our country, but lacks the proper attention to them, many questions have been suspended and is unresolved. Regarding to the meaning of Correspondence Offense, there is a huge difference in the scholars, the punishment to the different type of Correspondence Offense should to be committed to the general rule of china's criminal law about the joint offense stipulation, but also very fuzzy. Thus, the research of the definition of Correspondence Offense'scope and the punishment should be applied is extremely urgent, and has important theoretical and practical significance. Correspondence Offense , the independent doer's crime and the random joint offense have obvious difference, it is necessary to conduct in-depth studies. This article on the punishment of Correspondence Offense on the general provisions of the Penal Code is applicable provisions of this core issue, is divided into three parts, start against the concept of a Correspondence Offense, the punishment pattern of Correspondence Offense, and an accomplice theory of punishment and the question of the relationship discussed separately, and ultimately make a definition of Correspondence Offense and the theory of joint offense.The first part of the article, is the outline of the concept of Correspondence Offense, elaborated the theoretical background of Correspondence Offense in the mainland Penal Code, as well as the logical link between Correspondence Offense and its upper concept (accomplice, essential accomplice), and then analyzed different interpretations of connotation and extension of Correspondence Offense between Chinese and foreign scholars. After outlined the Penal Code's concept related to Correspondence Offense, and the analysis of narrow and broad concept of Correspondence Offense, the author of this paper adopted the broader concept, which is united with the functional concept of essential accomplice, it can make Correspondence Offense become a under concept of essential accomplice, conforms to the theory coherence, which put Correspondence Offense and Gather Offense down as two kinds of essential accomplice. Subsequently, used the methods of semantic analysis and in conjunction with the mainland criminal law's logical starting point, definited the scope of Correspondence Offense reasonably , which summed up the basic features: the complex of the main body, the correspondence of the acts and the two sides are governed by the law of negative evaluation, and at least one is given the negative assessment by the Criminal Code.The second part of the article, is the analysis and study of punishment mode of Correspondence Offense. In this paper, Correspondence Offense is divided into two styles, which are both sides published and only one side published by the Criminai Code. The author, in light of the specific provisions of China's criminal law classified, collected, and analyzed the specific types of Correspondence Offense. Both in the mutual-crimes committed on a specific analysis, the types of the applicability of the Penal Code for committing common crimes on the general provisions of the controversial issues were discussed. In my opinion, it should be based on both sides of committing the same offence to carry out qualitative analysis of the situation in specific, and can not be lumped together, that applies generally or not applicable. Specifically, the criminal charges and the two sides Legal Sentence have the same right of guilty, the two sides of different counts, the Legal Sentence of the same two types of offenders are committed to, the general provisions on criminal law should apply the provisions of common crime, which clearly both sides are guilty of the crime in the positions and their the role played by the truly accurate conviction and sentencing; count the same for both sides, Legal Sentence for a different offence committed and the two sides have different and Legal Sentence of a committed, these two categories of offenders on both sides of the crimes that are distinctly different, it does not serve our common crime on the relevant provisions of the Penal Code . Therefore , can only apply to the specific provisions sub, and on the general provisions of the Penal Code will no longer apply the provisions of complicity .As to the only punishment for a party committed, the author firstly analyzed the concrete manifestation of this type of crime in the Criminal Code. Subsequently, combined some of the specific crime, of which t two sides are both guilty , put forward the question that why same type of trading is guilty for both parties , and some just one party be punished. Based on my understanding of the concept of the Penal Code, summing up their main reasons are :different social harm, criminal policy and the guiding role of the Criminal Code of Modesty. Then, on the impunity of criminals were punished party constitute one of the accomplices in this fierce controversy on the issue, in light of Chinese civil law and scholars on this issue, as well as Chinese Criminal Law provisions on the nature of the crime, raised a view of that, should not be complicity on the general be principles .The third part of the article , is the explore of the relationship between Correspondence Offense punishment and the theory of joint offence. First, the author analyzed the root of the problem lies in the mainland's criminal law theory's common crime and our country's common crime having a huge difference. Whether the connotation or the extension of common crimes has a significant different. The difference of Common crime in the Criminal Code most causes the conflict. There are also major differences on the doctrine of common crime and the crime of the common classification in and out of china. Thereby causing a committed to the use of theory in China, and chinese Criminal Law, General crime on the common interface between the provisions of the problem. Subsequently, in the comparison and analysis of the scholars in this issue taken by the different treatment methods, I believe that we should recognize the common civil law and the concept of crime in the Criminal Law of China , crime is the common understanding of the two different levels on the concept, and they can not be confused. That is, we should recognize the concept of an accomplice diversified, hierarchical, there is no need to insist on the concept of all of chinese criminal law or should be the original agreement with the system. As a result, committed to the concept of the Penal Code is still in a particular type of crime generally, and common crime do not necessarily link , does not bring it under Chinese theoretical system of common crime. Thus, between Correspondence Offense with chinase thoery of joint offense, the two should be independent, rather than the relationship of attribution.The article further with the second part of a committedpenalties on the specific analysis , analyzed the profite and disadvantage of different penalties on the basis, put forward my own views, that is Correspondence Offense as a functional concept, outlined in the Penal Code with the nature of the crime, including the specific crime from the perspective, some in line with Chinese Criminal Law's General provisions on common crime, and some do not meet the requirement. Therefore, in line with Chinese Criminal Law, General provisions on common crime , should apply provisions of the General accomplices, the two sides in order to clear the role of an accomplice size, and should be subject to the level of punishment. General provisions which do not meet the requirements of an accomplice, criminal law is directly applicable to the specific provisions and general provisions can not be applied on the provisions of an accomplice.