摘要： 必要共同犯罪中的必要共犯行为是否可罚存在立法者意思说和实质说等观点的分歧，我国司法实务对此也持不尽一致的立场。实务与学理围绕必要共犯可罚性的纷争背后，其实是形式还是实质地理解必要共同犯罪条款的对立。依据反对解释和当然解释等形式地理解立法者意思的解释路径，虽然在不少场合能得出合理的答案，但可罚与否不应该只是一个形式逻辑的推论问题；大多数实质说则沉浸于违法性和责任等有无的迷思，而忽略了从违法性和责任的程度角度考察必要共犯的可罚性。对于必要共犯行为，应当在比例原则的制约下，结合各构成要件的规范目的，分为离心型犯罪、向心型犯罪等不同类型，具体地判断其可罚性之有无。

关键词: 必要共犯, 立法者意思说, 实质说, 规范目的

Abstract: There are many different opinions about whether the necessary accomplice of necessary joint crime is punishable, such as the theory of lawmaker's concept and the theory of law's essence.And the judicial practice in our country has also different positions.Behind the practice and theory about necessary accomplice is actually a formal or an essential understanding of necessary joint crime clause.Even though in many occasions we can reasonably come to the answer by formal understanding of lawmaker's concept, but the punishability should not be just a question of formal logic reasoning.Most part of the theory of law's essence immersed in unlawfulness and guilt and ignored to study the punishability of necessary accomplice from the perspective of the degree of unlawfulness and guilt.The punishability of necessary accomplice shall be under the control of proportional principle, based on the constitutive elements of crime, divided into centrifugal crime and centripetal crime and so on, and concretely analysed.

Key words: Necessary Accomplice, Theory of Lawmaker's Concept, Theory of Law's Essence, Purpose of Norm