摘要：

依照基础立场—核心概念—根本主张三个维度，不作为正共犯区分理论可周延性地类型化为原则帮助犯阵营、原则正犯阵营和具体判断（义务区分）阵营；迄今为止各阵营提出的理论都存在明显的缺陷。以三个理论维度检视我国司法判决，可确定义务区分阵营与我国司法实践的亲缘性。应提倡面向法益侵害的义务区分理论，即以义务与法益的关联方式和程度为标准，确定义务人在因果流程中所应起的作用大小，进而区分正共犯。一般规则是，以各义务类型在因果流程中所应处的位置预判义务人的作用大小；特殊规则是，在先前行为的场合，应以先前行为本身对法益侵害结果的贡献程度来确定正共犯。

关键词: 不作为, 正共犯（主从犯）, 义务区分, 法益

Abstract:

According to three dimensions of basic position，core concept and basic holding，the doctrines of distinguishing perpetrator from accomplice in inaction-joint offense fall into three types，the general-accomplice theory，the general-perpetrator theory and the duty-oriented theory.In these three theory schools，all the doctrines bear obvious defects.By applying the theoretical dimensions to domestic judicial practice，this paper finds it fits into the duty-oriented category.This paper upholds a legal interest-decided，duty-oriented doctrine，which means the way and degree the legal interest and the duty related is the key point to distinguish perpetrator from accomplice in inaction-joint offense.The general rule is that the roles different types of duties played in the causal process determine the contribution the subject of the legal duty makes to legal interest infringement，so that perpetrator and accomplice can be distinguished.When it comes to the duty derived from“prior act”，an exceptional rule takes place，which considers the infringement the prior act made in the causal process as the criterion.

Key words: Inaction, Perpetrator and Accomplice, Duty-oriented, Legal interest