摘要： 我国刑法中“特别法惟轻”的法条竞合现象，的确有部分是因为错将想象竞合当作法条竞合造成的。区分法条竞合与想象竞合的实质标准是法益同一性。属于同类法益的具体法益之间未必具有同一性，而不属于同类法益的具体法益之间也未必不具有同一性。当判断竞合关系涉及侵害复合法益的犯罪时，不能忽视必要保护之次要法益，次要法益与它罪法益亦可能具有法益同一性；不能混淆次要法益与附随法益，误将附随法益当作次要法益，将导致法条竞合现象的不当扩张。法益是否同一除考虑法益性质和内容外，也受制于法益保护范围和程度，即保护相同法益，但保护程度或范围存在轻重大小之别的条文之间，亦可认为法益不同一，而成立想象竞合。

关键词: 法条竞合, 想象竞合, 法益同一, 同类法益, 次要法益, 附随法益

Abstract: In our criminal law the punishment of the special article is lighter than the common article, probably because we mistake“imaginative joinder of offenses”as“overlapping of legal provisions”.The substantive distinction between these two terms lies in the consistency of legal interests.Two specific legal interests under same legal interest category may not share something in common, and two specific legal interests category may  be identical.In judging the competing relationship about the crimes which damages complex legal interests, we cannot ignore to protect the secondary legal interests, which and the legal interests of other crimes may also be identical.We cannot confuse the secondary legal interests with stochastic legal interests.Mistaking stochastic law interests as secondary legal interests will lead to the improper expansion of“overlapping of legal provisions”.To judge the consistency of legal interests, we should take into account both the legal interests' properties and contents and the scopes and extents, if there are differences in the scopes and extents.Possibilities are that“imaginative joinder of offenses”are constituted.

Key words: Overlapping of Legal Provisions, Imaginative Joinder of Offenses, The Consistency of Legal Interests, Kindred law Interest, Secondary Legal Interest, Stochastic Legal interest