A Study Of The Establishment Of Accomplices In The Relationship

The criteria for the identification of accomplices(abettors and aiding and abetting offenders)in the judicial practice vary,and there are still cases of improper incrimination and inaccurate logic.These practical problems reveal the lack of depth of theoretical research on relevant criminal law,it is necessary to clarify theoretical problems to the offender on the basis of the solution of relevant problems in judicial practice.In the process of introducing the theory of criminal law in China,a certain amount of controversy has arisen with regard to the concept of the opposite sex offender,which originated in German and Japanese criminal law.The German-Japanese theory of complicity is clearly stratified,with a distinction between the broadest,broadest and narrowest strata,which does not exist for joint crimes in our criminal law,leading to the question of how effectively compatible the concept of the adversary arises after its introduction.The author argues that in order to achieve the dual purpose of effective embedding of the theory and not compromising the value of the research on contrarians,the formulation of contrarian relations is necessary.Subsequently,on the basis of deconstructing and defining the dyadic relationship,the problem of complicity in dyadic relationships is mainly manifested in the judgment of internal complicity and the judgment of external complicity.The main logical unfolding of the thesis is divided into the following sections.Part ?: An analysis of specific cases in judicial practice shows that there is a tendency to generalize the identification of accomplices in the relationship,as well as inaccuracies in the logic of guilt.These problems in practice reflect two prominent problems in the theoretical and practical areas of the treatment of offenders,with varying degrees of theoretical research to be carried out and the inconsistency of adjudicative standards.The second part: Based on a comprehensive analysis and judgment of the controversy over the ontological concept of the offender,it is concluded that there is an obvious lack of localized thinking in the broad sense,while the narrow sense has mixed advantages and disadvantages,achieving the local compatibility of the extraterritorial theory on the one hand,and unduly narrowing the horizon of the study of the offender on the other.Therefore,the author believes that the concept of reciprocal relationship should be proposed on the basis of narrowly speaking,so as to achieve the dual purpose of theoretical compatibility and non-discriminatory value.Part ?: Unfolding of the pairwise relationship itself.Firstly,it is deconstructed and defined in terms of both the formal and the content elements,and it is considered to be the relationship between two parties in an opposing position in a criminal law sub-code that is formed by the performance of an adversarial act under the domination of opposing meanings.At the same time,the classification of the type of the opposite relationship is combed through,there are generally two modes of classification,one is the classification of the criminal and penal attributes as the standard,the other is the classification of the behavioral attributes as the standard,after comprehensive analysis of the different types of classification,it is considered that the classification of the criminal and penal attributes as the standard mode is more meaningful in solving the application of the law,especially in the establishment of accomplices,to this end,we insist on the classification of the type of opposite relationship from the criminal and penal attributes.Part ?: The issue of complicity in adversarial relationships allows for a division between internal and external relationships.In the internal complicity relationship,it focuses on the question of whether or not to establish an accomplice in a two-way counterpart relationship and the application of the provisions on master and accomplice in general complicity,and considers that a two-way counterpart relationship absolutely excludes the establishment of an accomplice and the application of the provisions on master and accomplice in general;it focuses on whether or not a party in a one-way counterpart relationship can establish a narrowly defined accomplice of the counterpart,that is,an instigator or an aider,and considers that the necessary limits and the hierarchy of normative judgments should be maintained,and at the same time considers that the act of offering does not,in principle,exceed the necessary limits of the act of participation,and only exceeds the necessary limits when the act of offering creates the "original intention" of the counterpart;at the same time,the act of cooperation absolutely negates the necessary limits,there is no room for the establishment of an instigator or an aider.The issue of narrow complicity judgement in external complicity relationships,which mainly involves third-party collaboration in a one-or two-way relationship,is also discussed on a case-by-case basis,using a one-way and two-way typology.