摘要： 认定真正身份犯的共犯应贯彻实行行为决定论。无身份者教唆、帮助有身份者实施真正身份犯的，应按照实行行为认定构成教唆或帮助犯。在无身份者和身份者共同“实行”真正身份行为时，无论是义务犯还是能力犯，无身份者形式上符合构成要件的行为因不具备义务违反性而不能被评价为实行行为，原本不成立单独实行犯的无身份者也就不能成立共同正犯。定罪时亦应以身份犯的实行行为确定整体案件性质，而不应采取其他的标准。在身份者教唆无身份者代替或帮助其“实行”的场合，由于身份者不可能完全放弃实行，因此身份者仍然成立直接正犯，无身份者则成立帮助犯。此外，A身份者教唆、帮助无身份者实施一般犯罪，而刑法就同一行为规定了A身份犯的场合，同样应考察义务身份的利用与否来确定行为的性质。

关键词: 真正身份犯, 共犯, 实行行为

Abstract: Perpetrating act determinism should be applied completely when determining the accomplices of a pure status crime. A non-status offender who instigates or assists a status offender to execute a status crime should be ascertained as an abettor or an auxiliary accomplice in accordance with their respective perpetrating acts. When a non-status offender and a status offender “perpetrate” a pure status offence together, an offence based on either an obligation or ability, the non-status offender’s act which fits constructive requirement of a crime in form cannot be considered as perpetrating act if without violating the specific obligation. Therefore, the non-status offender who is not a perpetrating actor at all cannot be a joint principal offender either. When determining a crime, the nature of an integral case should be determined by the status offender’s perpetrating act, not as the theory of determining principal offender based on higher obligation says. Even if a status offender instigates a non-status offender to surrogate or assist him/her to “perpetrate” a crime, the status offender is still the direct principal offender because he/she cannot completely give up “perpetrating” the crime. The non-status offender can only be an auxiliary accomplice. In addition, if the status offender A instigates or assists a non-status offender to commit an ordinary crime where the criminal law provides the status offender A for the same criminal act, the obligation status also should be considered so as to determine the nature of the act.

Key words: Pure Status Crime, Accomplice, Perpetrating Act