Research On Judicial Identification Of Unilateral Accessory

There is no relevant provisions in the general provisions of the criminal law of our country about the one-sided accomplice.At the same time,in the specific judicial practice,more and more cases occur frequently,which makes the one-sided accomplice a controversial place for people to discuss its rationality and applicability.At the present stage,it has become the opinion of most people to recognize the one-sided accomplice,and in recent years,there have been cases of conviction by using the theory of one-sided accomplice in judicial practice.Based on the actual needs,we should pay attention to how to determine the nature of the actor’s behavior in such cases and whether we can use the unilateral helper to apply the penalty to them.Because our country has no relevant provisions for the unilateral accomplice,the judicial application is only discussed according to the existing theory,and this theory has not formed a unified view,which will lead to the lack of a unified standard in the application of actual cases.Through four judicial cases of traditional one-sided accomplice,this paper analyzes the constitutive requirements of one-sided accomplice,clarifies its constitutive criteria,and distinguishes other similar accomplices in practice.The first part of this paper starts with the judicial practice cases of Zeng Weijun and Qin Jiangong’s fraud and obstruction of credit card management,and analyzes the subjective elements of determining whether they are the one-sided accomplices.Based on the relevant theories of identifying the subjective elements of one-sided accomplices,it analyzes how to further clearly identify the possibility of their intentional help,And how to identify one-sided help intention in practice.The second part takes the rape cases of Lin Sheng and Lin Xiaolong as the breakthrough point,analyzes the objective behavior elements of one-sided help behavior,recognizes the existence of individual spiritual help behavior,and analyzes the one-sided help behavior of act,omission and combination of act and omission,so as to identify the composition of one-sided help behavior.The third part,through two cases of judicial practice,distinguishes other accomplice forms similar to one-sided accomplice,distinguishes the differences among one-sided accomplice,indirect accomplice and one-sided accomplice,specifically identifies the differences between the two forms from the constitutive requirements,and discusses how to identify the accomplice form of the actor in the actual situation.Based on the cases that the actor has been identified as one-sided accomplice in practice,this paper discusses how to constitute one-sided accomplice with reference to other cases that use the theory of one-sided accomplice to defend.To sum up,this paper makes a brief analysis of the judicial identification of unilateral accomplice,and tries to help to identify such problems in practice.