On The First Act In Omission Crime

The first act theory is undoubtedly the most controversial on offenseof non-typical omission. This paper is about the first act and othernon-typical omission guarantor types and the difference between them.Pointed out that the particularity of the first act is no text or institutionalbasis. It’s one hundred years since the first act theory bore. Dispute aboutits existence escalating among theoretical circles. Some scholars even denythe guarantor status of the first theory. They think that the first act isagainst the principle of legality and the principle of prohibition repeatableevaluations. This paper argues that the first act should be insisted as one ofguarantor types. But we must limit its scope. Not all behaviors that causeharm legal interests can become the first act. Deny the first act can be aguarantor type would lead to crime be Ignored. And that is not conduciveto the protection of legal interests of the criminal law. But do not limit theextension of the first act, you may make the other guarantor types coveredby the first act. Making a crime that should belong AggregatedConsequential change to several crimes, or mistaken a civil compensationas a criminal liability. After detailed analysis was carried out on the firstact，it is concluded that the behavior of first act can only be positive act,and is at least a violation of the obligations, criminal behavior can be thefirst act. To decide whether a behavior belongs to the first act must have acombination of three criteria: first, the obligation violation; Second, thecreation of endanger the risk of criminal legal interests; Third, theestablishment of risk must be associated with the behavior.