The Research On The Establishment Scope Of Indirect Principal

As indirect principal was exotic, the research on indirect principal of Chinese CriminalLaw started late. There have been already a lot of discussions on it, because they do not reallyunderstand the nature of it, and are lack of a significant breakthrough demonstration basis andgrounds, so the domestic research of the Criminal Code compared to Germany and Japan isvery poor. As the establishment scope is the theoretical nature of indirect principal, departureangle of our country’s mainstream viewpoint is the characteristic of non-accomplice, which isbased on the theoretical position for compensating accomplice theory. This article will giveup the false theory basis, comply with the contemporary independent status——indirectprincipal is committing crime the same as the perpetrator, re-raise establishment standardfrom that correct standpoint to build a solid foundation for indirect principal theory.The article firstly introduces the establishment standard and range of indirect principal,building on a non-accomplice nature, on which contemporary Chinese Criminal Lawgenerally agrees. Briefly introduces its concept, characteristic and nature, and draws itsstandard from object, objective aspect, subject, subjective aspect angles, then derives sixtypes which the majority of scholars endorse at present: the use of irresponsible men’sbehavior, the use of other’s non-behavior physical activity, the use of another person’sbehavior which is neither intentional nor negligent, the use of another person’s negligentbehavior, the use of other’ s intentional behavior and the use of other’ s legal behavior.The second part of the article is to analyze the limitation of indirect principal comingthrough the traditional method. The compensate theory of indirect principal has beenabandoned by modern Criminal Code, because of its not thorough substitute role, the defectin strict subordinate accomplice doctrine, erroneous accomplice-principle offender judgmentsequence and so on. Non-complicity is the core feature of indirect perpetrator, along withusing the theory of partly complicity for the establishment range of complicity, which clearlyin conflicts with the common argument on indirect principal’s essence, resulting the scope ofthe indirect principal cannot reasonably been defined. Constitutive requirement standard alsoleads to only a formal distinction between indirect perpetrator and instigator.Then the third part of the article explores the sights on the meaning domination theory inGerman Penal Code. Based on the independent status of indirect criminal, the theory hasalready comprehensively defined the establishment scope of indirect principal, and correctly demonstrated indirect principal’s commitment. This doctrine considers the standard of lying,in which man-backstage not only uses an intermediary who carries out criminal acts but alsodominates the entire criminal process. Meanwhile it makes real distinction between indirectprincipal and instigator.Finally, the part builds new qualification standard, with dominant as the core of indirectperpetrator. Using meaning domination theory redefines the concept、characteristic andproperty of indirect principal, proposes the new standard that is different from the former, andthus reviews the scope of Chinese mainstream perspectives, including expansion andnarrowness on the old range. The scope of the new standards under premise of correcttheoretical positioning, makes up for gaps in the old range while not infinite expansion,removes essentially the type of non-indirect principal while not excessive restriction.