The so-called * * * accomplice in crime refers to the situation in which two or more people intentionally commit a crime.
Intention to commit a crime: that is, to establish a * * * offender, there must be a * * * plot, and all crimes committed by * * * are intentionally the same.
* * * Crime of exceeding the limit: * * The criminal exceeds the intentional scope of * * *, and some other criminals will not be held responsible for it, and the implementer will bear the responsibility alone.
Case: One night, Party A and Party B tried to teach C a lesson, but they were resisted by C in the process of intentional injury. B was stabbed by C, and B was very angry. He pulled out his knife and stabbed C twice, resulting in C's death. At this time, B was convicted of intentional homicide. It was unexpected to teach A of C with B, and it was too late when he found out. In this case, in the process of doing harm with Party A, Party B went beyond the intentional scope of Party A and committed murder. This is an over-limit behavior. Party A does not bear the responsibility for killing, and Party B bears the responsibility alone. Therefore, Party A and Party B only establish * * * joint crime within the scope of intentional injury. Then A commits the crime of intentional injury, and B commits the crime of intentional homicide.
Second, the responsibility of * * * guilty.
The principle of * * * criminal responsibility is called "one act, full responsibility": all * * * criminals are only members of the same crime, and only one act is carried out for the result of the same crime, but they are ultimately responsible for the whole result of the same crime.
Legally speaking, the ringleaders of the group should be responsible for all the crimes committed by the group, and other principals should be responsible for all the crimes involved.
Case: Party A * * * conspired to kill C. During the execution, Party A stabbed C, but missed the point. B stabbed c in the heart, causing c to die. In this case, both parties should be responsible for the death of C.
Case: Party A and Party B embezzled 6,543,800 yuan, each with 500,000 yuan. At this time, Party A and Party B shall each be responsible for 6,543,800 yuan. That is, according to the total penalty.
In addition, for aggravated consequential offense, as aggravated consequential offense is often closely related to this crime, in general, as long as * * * and the perpetrator should foresee the possible aggravated consequences, they will bear the responsibility.
Case; Party A * * * picked a fight and robbed, and after entering a household, found the husband and wife in the same room. Party A and Party B winked at each other and agreed to deal with the husband and wife separately. When A robbed her husband's room, his husband died. B didn't know it, and didn't know the fact that A caused death during the robbery until the trial. In this case, Party A and Party B should bear criminal responsibility for the result of death caused by robbery.
Article 25 of the Criminal Law stipulates that an accomplice is an intentional crime committed by two or more persons. If two or more people commit a negligent crime, they shall not be punished as negligent crimes; Those who should bear criminal responsibility should be punished according to the crimes they committed.
* * * The principle of establishment is consistent, and the responsibility is consistent with the subjective and objective view: each * * * accomplice is only established within the scope of "* * * intentional", and it is intentional to bear * * *.
Case: Party A and Party B killed people at the same time and shot at Party C, and Party C died. In fact, only Party C fired, but it was impossible to find out whether it was Party A or Party B. In this case, both Party A and Party B committed the crime of intentional homicide and should bear criminal responsibility.
Case: Party A and Party B have a grudge against Party C and shoot Party C without knowing it in advance. C is dead. In fact, C was shot only once, but it was impossible to find out whether the gun was fired by A or B. In this case, A and B were not punished as * * * *, but were convicted of attempted intentional homicide respectively.
Case: A and B went hunting in the mountains. They saw a movement in the grass next to a hut, thought it was a rabbit, and shot together, killing the children playing here. There is only one bullet hole in the child's body. A and B use exactly the same guns and ammunition, so it is impossible to tell who did it. How to characterize the behavior of A and B? A and b do not constitute a crime.
Analysis: First, crack down on criminal law mistakes; The second is the principle of presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings. The act of killing a child by mistake is a blow to the mistake, and there are two ways to deal with it: one is to establish a negligent crime with negligence; The second is the establishment of no-fault accidents. That is, from the principle of presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings to examine the handling of both parties ... The child's death was caused by Party A and Party B, but there is not enough evidence to prove which side Party A and Party B's actions belong to, so if there is no evidence to prove that either party caused the child's death, Party A and Party B can only be considered innocent.
Third, treat them differently.
According to the size of * * * prisoners' role in * * * crimes, different punishments are given. The principal offender applies the principle of "one act, full responsibility"; An accessory shall be given a lighter, mitigated or exempted punishment.
Fourth, * * * crime and form.
* * * The problem of crime and form refers to the problem of * * * crime and its preparation, attempt, suspension and accomplishment.
(1) General situation: whoever is the highest-ranking principal and who has completed the crime will complete all criminals.
(2) Special circumstances:
Some * * * prisoners were suspended separately:
Conditions for suspending the establishment of independence: effective, that is, in the case of simultaneous implementation of * * * *, the crime was effectively prevented and the crime was not completed. "Abort Failure" cannot be established independently. Failure to stop means that in the * * * joint crime, there are * * * criminals who want to stop the crime alone, and make every effort to prevent the occurrence of the * * * criminal result, but ultimately failed, and the criminal result still happened.
Case: Party A and Party B conspired to kill Party C, and Party A was the mastermind. In order to avoid C's bleeding, they first knocked C unconscious with a rubber hammer, and then dragged C to the suburbs and buried it with a car. After arriving in the suburbs, Party A asked Party B to dig a hole and keep watch and smoke by himself. At this point, C woke up and asked B to let him go. B agreed to let C go quickly. Just as C was about to leave, A found out, ran after him and insisted on killing C, but B stopped him, and they argued, and B was knocked unconscious by A. Finally, A killed C..B When B woke up, A had already left and C was dead. B surrendered himself. This situation is unsuccessful, and both parties still constitute a joint crime, that is, the crime of intentional homicide is accomplished.
Case: Party A * * * conspired to steal, and Party A didn't come when the theft was committed. If A offers help to B, A only withdraws passively, and B uses A's help to commit theft, then both A and B commit theft.
Case: Party A and Party B conspired to steal the car, and Party A gave Party B the key needed to steal the car .. But A later told Party B to give up the crime and asked Party B to return the key. B said to A, Wait a few minutes, I'll make a key with your key and return it to you. A wants the key he originally provided. After B stole the car with his own key (worth 50,000 yuan).
Party A and Party B constitute the crime of theft (accomplished).
Analysis: * * * The same crime refers to intentional crimes committed by two or more people. In this case, Party A and Party B conspired to steal the car. Although Party A later told Party B to give up committing the crime, it asked Party B to continue making keys for committing the crime. In fact, he was involved in the crime, and he was a thief. For criminals, the theory of criminal responsibility in criminal law adopts the view of "one act, full responsibility". B stole the car, which constitutes the accomplished crime of theft. For A, according to the above theory, although he only participated in the key preparation process, he still took full responsibility, which also constituted the accomplished crime of theft.
Note: Quitting a crime halfway is not necessarily termination. If the other prisoners finish, the quitter will finish.
If the * * * offender is established separately and the crime is suspended, it will be effective. At this point, the effect of probation is not as good as that of other prisoners. For other * * * criminals, because of reasons other than will, they have not completed the crime, so it may be an attempted crime or a preparatory crime.
Case: Party A * * * conspired to hijack the plane and made full preparations for it. I bought my plane ticket and planned to board the plane to hijack the plane the next day. In the evening, A wavered, called her sister and told her to hijack the plane. His sister strongly opposed it and took A to surrender. Therefore, the public security organs also arrested B. In this case, A's behavior constitutes a crime suspension and B's behavior constitutes a crime preparation.
Note: Attempted crime is called attempted crime, and it is called criminal preparation if it is stopped due to reasons other than the will of the perpetrator during the preparation.