The Research On The Advanced Behavior Of China’s Criminal Law

In the concept of non-typical omission is the advance behavior definitely the most controversial part. How to define the scope of the problem is difficult to solve. For a time, all kinds of theories have different opinions, from the initial form as the obligation to the substance of the obligation, and even put forward the idea of the negative first act. In the judicial practice also experienced arbitrary judgment to follow, but there are still many problems need to solve the dispute.The first part is raising a question. When we confirm typical omission, the juridical department are always focused on the duty of action, but neglect the effect between behavior and result, mix cause and imputation. Lead to in the crime, only to judge the behavior in a dangerous state before the existence of "behavior", if it exists, the previous behavior will is defined as the first act, and shall be investigated for criminal responsibility. This value only as the obligation of view deviates from the criminal law first priority is to protect the legal philosophy, crime is no longer to see if the infringement of legal interest, the transition to is abstract, judges are required to make a value judgment of as obligations. This also led to the random nature of the punishment, as a result of the expansion of the scope of punishment or narrowing.The second part as a recognized the significance of advance behavior within the framework of the obligation and trouble.With the theory and practice of the form as a duty of questioning, some scholars put forward the substantive as a theory of obligation or form, the essence of the combination, but today, and did not find a complete unified answer. In not really not as a crime, it shall first determine the criminal law to protect the legal interests is received against, and according to the judgment of causality, find shall punish the behavior, such as no proper discharge causes, and shall be investigated for criminal responsibility, the above judgment may have the objective imputation theory to complete.The third part is the antecedent act guarantor statues issue take German, Japan and Chinese Taiwan for instance. Using the argument and analysis, the deny the antecedent act, but can’t provide a better project or their project have troublesome in themselves, which need more energy to make up. There is no different with acting in a Procrustean way. Sp denying the antecedent act to be the source of the duty of action is also need to be discussed. Meanwhile, the bound of antecedent act typical omission must be strictly curtailed. What will be needed to regulated the bound of typical omission is the next question, which need to be solved.The fourth part is defining the judging standard of antecedent act and making sure their scope.and apply the theory of objective imputation to the. First the objective imputation theory itself is set to determine whether the act belongs to the responsibility and behavior theory, the judgment and the advance behavior happens. The antecedent behavior structure is different from the other person’s type, and its characteristics also provide an opportunity for the application of the objective imputation theory. In accordance with this standard, the first acts include criminal acts(intentional and negligent) as well as an emergency hedge, but not the legitimate defense.