摘要： 对大量案例的分析表明，中国司法裁判上有时会对危险制造、危险的相当实现、危险升高作相对明确的表态，在经验判断之外进行规范判断，其方法论和客观归责论基本一致，使得中国司法实务对疑难案件的处理和德、日等国没有太大差异。如果考虑到相当因果关系说缺乏下位规则，体系化、规范性欠缺等不足，在未来中国重视客观归责的方法论意义是理所当然的；承认实行行为论并不一定要否定客观归责论中的危险制造；是否采用客观归责论，与犯罪论体系的阶层化关联性很小。即便司法上未来不使用客观归责的术语，但在判断逻辑上也要将事实判断(经验判断)和规范判断(价值判断)区分开来。

关键词: 因果关系, 客观归责论, 方法论, 司法实务

Abstract: According to the analysis of a large riumber of cases, the adjudication sometimes makes a relatively clear position on danger manufacturing, danger realization and danger promotion, and it makes a norm judgment out of experience judgment. Because the objective imputation theory and the methodology is the same, China, Germany, Japan and other countries do not show much difference on judicial practice of difficult cases. In consideration of equivalent causality's defects of lacking inferior rules, systematization and normalization, valuing the methodology of objective imputation theory will be inevitable in future China. Accepting the act of perpetrating theory does not mean to negate danger manufacturing of objective imputation theory. Whether to adopt the objective imputation theory is not related to the stratification of criminal theory system. Even without using the term of objective imputation in the judicial practice in the future, the fact judgment / experience judgment and norm judgment/value judgment should be clearly separated in the judgment of logic.

Key words: Causality of Criminal Law, Objective Imputation, Theory, Methodology, Judicial Practice