| China’s criminal law academic circles pay more attention to the crime of omission,and there are many related works,papers and other academic achievements.At present,although there is a general consensus on the crime of omission,especially the crime of impure omission in some aspects,there has been no explicit provisions on the content of the crime of omission in the provisions of the criminal law of our country.Therefore,in judicial practice,when it comes to the crime of omission,there are often different judgments in the same case.In this paper,a real case is introduced,from the different opinions and the focus of controversy in this case,the related problems of the impure omission crime involved in the case are brought out,and the corresponding conclusions are drawn through the analysis of these problems,so as to put forward our own suggestions for the legislation and practice of the impure omission crime in China.This paper is divided into four parts,about 28,000 words,the main contents are as follows:The first part introduces the basic situation of the case,including the cause of the case,the facts of the case,different opinions and the focus of the dispute.According to the case,there are three opinions on the establishment of the crime of intentional homicide,the crime of abandonment and the crime of innocence,from which it is concluded that the focus of the dispute in this case is whether Liang has the obligation of acting,whether there is a causal relationship between the act of locking the door and the death of Aron in criminal law,and whether his omission is equivalent to his act.Only by screening these problems can we find out whether Liang constitutes a crime of omission Conclusion of crime.The second part is the jurisprudential analysis combined with the dispute focus of this case,which is the core content of this paper.First of all,it gives the definition of the impure omission crime which supports this article from the concept of impure omission crime;secondly,it traces back the source of the obligation of omission crime,mainly from the two angles of formal obligation and substantive obligation;thirdly,it introduces the theory of causality to clarify the criteria of causality between omission and result in omission crime;finally,it introduces the theory of causality to clarify the criteria of causality between omission and result in omission crime;finally,it gives the definition of omission and act from the perspective of equivalence,the establishment of omission crime is limited,so as to build a complete judgment process of omission crime.The third part is to analyze the different opinions and focus of the case combined with the relevant theory of the crime of impure omission,and draw the conclusion of the case:Liang,the defendant in the case,does not constitute the crime of intentional homicide,nor the crime of abandonment,and the behavior should be declared innocent.The fourth part is the author’s Enlightenment from the analysis of the case as follows:first,the criminal law provisions of the crime of omission should be improved;second,similar cases should be handled in accordance with the "four sources theory";third,the causality of the crime of omission should be taken into account;fourth,the equivalence between the crime of omission and the crime of act should be noted Reality dominates. |
