The Restriction Of Crime Of Omission When Criminality Is The Advance Behavior

Compared with pure non-committed offenders,impure omissions lack clear legal provisions.Therefore,the prudent determination of impure omissions is an objective requirement of adhering to the legal principle of crime.The key to judging impure inaction is to clarify the source and scope of its obligation.The theory of the source of obligation as impure innocent offenses includes three types: "the theory of deed as obligation","the theory of deed as substance",and "the theory of deed as the combination of form and substance",in which "form and substance are combined" "As a theory of obligation" not only has the advantages of "form as an theory of obligation",but also has the advantages of economics and clarity of guidance.It can also limit the establishment of an obligation as a "substantial theory of obligation" while providing a substantial basis for the source of obligations Scope,it should be promoted.Among the various sources of obligations of impure inaction,due to the lack of a fixed form and clear legal provisions,the establishment of antecedents should follow the method of combining this form with substance,and provide a clear direction for its determination.At the same time,it essentially limits its scope of establishment.Among various types of antecedent behaviors,due to the special nature of criminal behaviors compared to other types of antecedent behaviors,there are "negative theory","eclectic theory" and "affirmative theory" whether they can be regarded as antecedent This point of view,while pointing out the shortcomings of the negative theory and the compromise theory,supports the point of positive theory.And on the basis of adhering to the position of combining form and substance,by distinguishing between "guarantor status" and "as an obligation",it proposed a form that first affirmed that the criminal act can be entered into the "guarantor status" as a precedent,and then further in the substance Judging whether it can eventually produce the affirmative theory as an applicable path.Finally,this paper proposes a method to limit the scope of the establishment of criminal preemptive behavior by combing the two types of criminal preemptive actsas criminal criminal process: in the first stage,we will examine whether legal obligations and substantive judgments arise In the second stage,through the application of objective blame theory,judge whether the final result can be blamed on inaction.In this way,the determination of the type of pre-criminal inaction is not restricted in stages.