Study On The Unilateral Correspondence Crime

As a stereotype of correspondence crime, unilateral correspondence crime is subordinate to the category of indispensable joint crime. Considering the legislation only regulate single perpetrator, it aroused a serious of deputes surrounding the connection with the joint crime, the indispensable joint crime, and the rationality of the impunity party to be accomplice, and the divergence about the general provisions of Criminal Law directly approached the diverse conclusion of the specific charges. Accordingly, I unfold the demonstration pointing at several controversy problems following the system of “from general provisions to specific provisions, from doctrine to application”. The doctrine position of this paper is three classes of crime, doctrine of restriction dependency, doctrine of mixture cause.There exist broad sense and narrow sense aiming at the relationship between the correspondence offense and the indispensable joint crime.The narrow sense support the view that the indispensable joint crime must offense the same accusation. This paper agrees withe the broad sense which conclude both the correspondence crime and the unilateral correspondence crime into the indispensable joint crime, and the unilateral correspondence crime can be interpreted as “impure dispensable joint crime”rather than joint crime. As for the connection with joint crime, the both sides do not act as the collective perpetrator of the counterpart replaced by taking responsibilities(or not taking) of their own behaviors.In order to distinguish from the assembling offense, the definition of unilateral correspondence crime should target at the bilateral sides, the diverge purpose, the oppose behavior direction. It could specific into four stereotypes which are :the type of victim participation, the type of utilizing status, the type of offender abetting.The core issue about unilateral correspondence crime is why the unilateral correspondence crime only regulate the perpetrators of single side. The doctrine of legislator purpose, the doctrine of substance and the doctrine of comprise all exist defects. As a result, this paper agrees that the essential of correspondence participants being accomplices is detachment from correspondence relationship by analyzing the increasing danger of abetting or aiding behaviors. Besides, this paper demonstrates the impunity reason on three angles: the lack of Anticipated Possibility, the degree of legal interest infringement, the restriction of proportion principal. Finally, this paper select three typical accusation from the specific provisions. Although the behavior of purchasing forged identity card was regulated in the < Amendment(IX) to the Criminal Law>, I highly suggest narrow the scale of “purchase” considering the legislation history. The behavior of buying forged university diploma or degree documentary evidence can not charge as joint crime duing to lack of the nature of substantial violation and simply utilizing the criminal opportunity not creating. As for the purchasing medical equipments which are inconsistent with standard, it can be evaluated as “selling” under the circumstance of later profitable application considering the profitable purpose of medical apartment or individuals.