共犯最小从属性说之再提倡——兼论帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪的性质

限制从属性说以正犯行为同时具有构成要件该当性与违法性作为共犯的成立前提,因而面临无法有效应对新型网络共同犯罪的危机。为解决这一危机,该说中有着眼于帮助对象必须是他人的"犯罪",主张帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪只是"帮助犯的量刑规则"的,也有以刑法分则条文的定罪机能为根据,提出"帮助犯正犯化"说的。但是,共犯的违法性不从属于正犯,正犯合法之时共犯亦可能违法,正犯违法之时共犯亦可能合法,因而应采取最小从属性说。在该说看来,帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪在属于独立罪名这一意义上,具有正犯性,而在只有为他人"犯罪"提供帮助才能成立犯罪这一意义上,又具有共犯性,因而是一种介于正犯与共犯之间的"混合归责模式"。这种理解虽然看似违反形式逻辑,但其恰恰是对刑法第287条之二的忠实解读,且完全符合司法解释主张原则上应从属于正犯犯罪,但在严格限制的前提下可以仅从属于正犯实行行为的态度。

The Re-proposal of the Theory of Minimum Dependence and Nature of Assisting Information Network Criminal Activities Crime

Since the approval of the establishment of the conspiracy by the restricted subordination theory is based on the principal offender’s conduct must have satisfied both elements of crime and illegality,the theory faces the crisis of being unable to effectively cope with new types of conspired cyber-crimes.In order to solve this crisis,in the theory,there is a"crime"in which the target of assist must be someone else,and claims that the crime of assisting information network criminal activities is only a"sentencing rule for accessory";there are also claims that"criminalizing the accessory as a principal offender"based on the conviction function of the clauses of the criminal law.While the principal offender’s violation of the law does not necessarily result in the accessory’s violation of the law,the principal offender’s lawfulness does not necessarily result in the accessory’s lawfulness,the illegality of the accessory does not subordinate to the illegality of the principal offender thus,the minimum dependency should be adopted.From the perspective of this theory,the crime of assisting information network criminal activities is of a principal criminal nature in the sense of being an independent crime,and it is also of the nature of complicity in the sense that only by providing assistance to"crime"convicted by others can a crime of assisting information network criminal activities to be established.Therefore,it is a"mixed liability model"between the principal offender and accessory.Although this kind of understanding seems to violate the formal logic,it is exactly a faithful interpretation of section 287(2)of the Criminal Law,and it fully complies with the judicial interpretation’s attitude that it should be subject to the crime of the principal offender,but may only be subordinated to the offender’s conduct under strict restrictions.