摘要：

主张我国刑法也是采取区分制犯罪参与体系的论者，有的认为我国《刑法》第25条、也有的认为第26条是关于共同正犯的规定，并以此作为我国刑法采取区分制体系的重要法律依据。但是，我国《刑法》第25条、第26条均不是关于共同正犯的规定。不仅在这两个条文中找不到“共同正犯”或与之含义相同的词语，而且对这两个条文所指涉的犯罪参与人，也没有类似德、日刑法“依正犯处罚”的规定；况且，采取单一正犯体系的我国刑法，并不会有区分制体系的刑法所特有的那种关于共同正犯的规定。根本原因在于，区分制体系下须用共同正犯的规定和理念来解决的定罪处罚难题，在我国的单一正犯体系下并不存在。

关键词: 共同犯罪, 共同正犯, 犯罪参与, 区分制体系, 单一正犯体系

Abstract:

Scholars who deem that China's Criminal Law adopts dividing system of crime participation regard Article 25 or Article 26 of Criminal Law as the provision about co-perpetrator as well as the vital legal basis of the reason why China’s Criminal Law adopts dividing system.However，neither Article 25 nor Article 26 is the provision about co-perpetrator.Furthermore，differing from Criminal Laws adopting dividing system，China's Criminal Law，which adopts unitary principal offender system，will not stipulate co-perpetrator.The basic reason is that different from dividing system，China's unitary principal offender system does not need to exert the theories of co-perpetrator to solve the problems of conviction and punishment.

Key words: Joint Crimes, Co-perpetrator, Crime Participation, Dividing System, Unitary Principal Offender System