不纯正不作为犯的基本问题研究

【作者】 陈荣飞；

【导师】 李永升；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 刑法学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 不纯正不作为犯的问题历来是刑法理论中的难题,不纯正不作为犯的理论发展至今虽已近两个世纪,但其中的每一个问题在理论上依然歧见纷呈、不甚明了,因此仍有进一步研究之必要。本文以不纯正不作为犯的基本问题为研究对象,其中涉及不作为的行为性、不纯正不作为犯的概念、不纯正不作为犯的因果关系、不纯正不作为犯与罪刑法定原则的关系、不纯正不作为犯的作为义务等方面的问题。文章共由八个部分组成。引言,本部分简要地介绍了不纯正不作为犯的理论现状,并分析了导致这种现状的根由在于现有的刑法理论未能揭示科学的行为概念,以此为基础表明本文的立论基点及解决不纯正不作为犯基本问题的具体逻辑进路。第一章,不纯正不作为犯的学说史及立法概况。本章共分两节,在第一节中介绍了不纯正不作为犯理论在大陆法系中的学说发展史,它主要经历了作为义务说萌芽、因果关系说、违法性说、保证人说等四个阶段。第二节则较为详细地介绍了中外各主要国家的刑法有关不纯正不作为犯的立法状况。英美法系国家一般不存在不纯正不作为犯的概念,在大陆法系国家刑法中,有关不纯正不作为犯的立法一般都采取总则规定的模式,其中主要涉及作为义务的规定问题、等价性问题及量刑问题等。第二章,不作为的行为性。行为概念是整个刑法体系的基石,依据不同的标准可以将其分为若干行为类型,而在行为的所有类型中,最让人困惑不解的是不作为行为,为论证其行为性问题,理论上提出形形色色的行为学说,主要有因果行为论、目的行为论、社会行为论、人格行为论及消极行为论等等,然而所有的这些行为理论在不作为的行为性问题上均未作出令人信服的解释,不作为的行为性至今仍然是刑法理论中的难题。本章通过考察分析作为人类最基本的存在和表现形式——劳动的诸结构要素,在此基础上抽象概括出普遍意义上的人的行为概念。人的行为应当是主体控制或者应当控制的客观条件作用于特定对象存在状态的过程,即控制行为论,它包括主体、主观、客观条件及对象等四个基本要件。较之于以往所有的行为理论,控制行为论存在着两个最为显著的特点:一是主张行为的主观要件是行为的核心要件,二是在行为的客观要件中特别强调行为所依赖的客观条件要件。行为的这两项至关重要的内容都为以往的行为理论所忽视而恰恰是传统行为理论目前面临重重困境的突破口。在不作为的行为性上,依据控制行为理论,不作为是以行为人应当控制的外部自然因果进程或他人的行为为表现形式的行为。作为与不作为的区别根本在于各自所依赖的客观条件的范围不同,不作为所依赖的客观条件只限于行为人外部的自然因果进程和他人的行为而不包含行为人的自身身体条件,而作为则以依赖行为人的自身身体条件为必要。在行为中纳入客观条件要件充实了不作为行为主观罪过的内容,行为人是在认识或者应当认识自然因果进程或他人的行为性质的情况下,有意或无意(指过失)地阻断自身身体条件作用于其他客观条件以防止其指向行为对象,进而导致行为人之外的客观条件引起行为对象存在状态的改变。不作为的主观罪过因此也就不再是空洞或虚拟的了,而有了实际的内容。不作为的行为性就此破解。第三章,不纯正不作为犯的概念。有关不纯正不作为犯概念的界定涉及作为与不作为及作为犯与不作为犯的区分标准问题、不作为犯的分类问题、不纯正不作为犯的名称及定义问题等。由于作为、不作为与作为犯、不作为犯是一般与特殊、共性与个性的关系,故后者的区分必须建立在前者的区分基础之上,无前者则后者的区分就缺乏相应的依据。依据控制行为论,不作为是以行为人应当控制的外部自然因果进程或他人的行为为表现形式的行为,作为与不作为的区分主要表现在行为过程中各自所依赖的客观条件的范围不同上,不作为所依赖的客观条件不含行为人的自身身体条件,而作为则以行为人的自身身体条件加入为必要,或者说,作为与不作为区分在于行为人的自身身体条件对行为对象存在状态的改变是否进行了加工。这样,作为犯就是以作为的方式实施的犯罪,而不作为犯则是以不作为的方式实施的犯罪。二者的区分是以行为人的自身身体条件在犯罪对象存在状态改变上是否进行了加工为准。由于犯罪对象的存在状态是犯罪客体要件的内容,因此作为犯与不作为犯的认定不能脱离刑法规范的具体规定。该标准能够较为简单地对一些结构看似复杂的犯罪行为进行归类。对于不作为犯的分类,理论上虽然存在着多种分类,但将不作为犯分类为纯正不作为犯和不纯正不作为犯最具理论和实践意义。所谓纯正不作为犯是指以不作为的方式而犯刑法规定只能以不作为方式实现的犯罪,不纯正不作为犯则是指以不作为的方式实施通常由作为方式实现的犯罪。二者在本质上都属于不作为犯,并且都是纯粹的、不含任何异质的不作为犯。因此,在理论上将二者分别称为纯正(真正)不作为犯和不纯正(不真正)不作为犯确实不是很恰当,但是通过考察学界提出的其他各种称谓,也同样存在着这样或那样的缺陷,考虑到纯正(真正)不作为犯和不纯正(不真正)不作为犯之称谓由来已久且已为学界普遍接受并广泛使用之事实,故仍予沿用。第四章,不纯正不作为犯的因果关系理论。自德国学者卢登于19世纪中叶首先对不作为犯的因果关系提出质疑之后,大陆法系刑法理论界对其论争就从未有过停歇,但是该理论发展至今依然未能得出一个令人信服的结论。不作为犯的因果关系理论之所以会出现此等状况与作为其基础的传统刑法因果关系理论存在的致命缺陷紧密相关。传统刑法因果关系理论在研究任务、研究对象及体系定位上都存在根本性的错误。刑法因果关系有其特殊性,其特殊性由来于刑法的规制对象——犯罪行为的特殊性,依据控制行为论,它是主观与客观的统一体,其中,主观罪过起着决定性作用,它决定着客观危害的存在范围。故刑法因果关系的实质当是行为人主观罪过的因果联系在客观的展开过程,判断是否存在刑法上的因果关系其实就是判断行为人主观罪过在客观的展开过程与现实的危害结果的发生过程是否合致的问题,或者说是判断现实的危害结果是否为行为人主观罪过范围内的危害社会结果的逻辑推理过程。不作为犯罪由于无行为人自身身体条件的加入,故从外观上看是外在的自然条件或他人的行为导致了危害结果的发生,该危害结果的发生似乎与行为人毫无相干。因此只能在行为人的主观罪过范围内寻求行为人与发生作用的客观条件及危害结果间的联系。在故意的不作为犯罪中,行为人明知某种自然条件的发展趋势或他人的行为具有引起某种危害后果发生之性质,应当通过自身身体条件对它们进行控制以防止刑法所禁止的危害结果出现却未加控制,希望或者放任该危害结果的发生;而在过失的不作为犯罪中,行为人则是应当认识或者已经认识到某种自然条件的发展趋势或他人的行为具有引起某种刑法所禁止的危害结果发生之性质,并应当对其进行控制却未加控制,使得相关客观条件作用于犯罪对象进而导致该危害后果的发生。不作为犯的因果关系就在于此。据此,在判断行为人的不作为行为与某种危害结果之间是否存在刑法上的因果关系时,同样应着眼于主体的主观罪过,判断该危害结果是否为行为人认识或应当认识并为其所应当控制,如若是则肯定它们之间的因果关系,反之则否。第五章,不纯正不作为犯与罪刑法定原则。罪刑法定原则经历了由早期的绝对的罪刑法定原则向相对的罪刑法定原则的转变,相对的罪刑法定原则对绝对的罪刑法定原则进行了一定程度的修正。而与不纯正不作为犯直接相关的是罪刑法定原则的两个重要派生原则——明确性原则和确定性原则。绝对的罪刑法定主义对法的绝对明确性确信无疑,但是罪刑法定主义自其提出发展至今的理论和实践无不证明,刑法规范的绝对明确性永远是一种不切实际的幻想。明确性原则所要求的刑法规范的明确性不可能是绝对地明确而只能是相对地明确,明确性原则中本身即包含模糊性,并且模糊性还有其相当的价值和意义。在刑法规范明确性的判断标准上应当采取一般人标准,即以具有通常判断能力的一般人的预测可能性为标准,如果一般人能够理解某一刑法规范,那么就满足明确性之要求,反之,便是不明确的。就不纯正不作为犯而言,来自罪刑法定主义之明确性原则的质疑主要在于刑法规范并未对作为其成立条件之一的作为义务进行规定,因而被指不符合明确性原则的要求。对于不纯正不作为犯之作为义务,由于立法技术上的局限刑法规范并未对其作出明确规定,因此只能从理论上对其进行界定。在理论上该义务应仅限于法律上的义务,就法的作为义务而言,即使一般人对该义务在法律规范层面上未必有认识,但可以肯定的是,一般人对于违反该义务是有害的或者说(依据作为人的基本是非观念判断)是不对的至少是有认识或者应当认识,因此未超出一般人能够预见或认识范围。故刑法规范对不纯正不作为犯构成要件的规定一方面是不得已的选择,另一方面即使对作为义务未作出规定,也没有超出一般人的预见或应当预见范围,故很难说违背了罪刑法定原则之明确性要求。确定性原则强调的是对法官适用刑法规范过程的限制,其核心是禁止类推,即禁止法官在刑法规范之外创设罚则,但扩张解释是被允许的。扩张解释与类推的界限是用语可能的含义。不过用语可能的含义只是在解释结论明显偏离可能文义的情况下起到排除的作用,而对于那些居于可能文义的临界区域的解释则应从实质正义的角度予以辨明,即解释结论应当符合“常识、常理、常情”。在探讨不纯正不作为犯与确定性原则时,学者们一般认为处罚不纯正不作为犯是类推适用作为犯的构成要件故得出违反罪刑法定原则的结论。本文的观点是,从全体法规范的视角来看,不作为犯是既违反了禁止性规范又违反了命令性规范。刑法分则规范都是禁止性规范,作为犯和不作为犯最终都违反了禁止性刑法规范,故某一刑法规范规定的构成要件可能既包含作为犯的构成要件也包含不作为犯的构成要件,所以处罚不纯正不作为犯并非类推适用刑法规范规定的作为犯的构成要件,而就是适用其本身的构成要件,就此而言,处罚不纯正不作为犯并不违反罪刑法定之确定性原则要求。由于大陆法系通行犯罪论体系的缺陷及对不纯正不作为犯的规范构造的认识错误导致了等价理论的产生,等价理论认为刑法规范只规定了作为犯的构成要件而并未规定不纯正不作为犯的构成要件,但由于不纯正不作为犯与作为犯在存在论构造上的差异,故以作为犯的构成要件去框定不纯正不作为犯的客观方面势必出现不相吻合的问题,即出现所谓的“间隙”,填补此等“间隙”的理论便是等价理论。本文认为,不纯正不作为犯的犯罪构成与作为犯的犯罪构成由于接受同一法定刑地评价故二者从某种意义上说是应当等价,但是这种等价只能是在同一性质层面上的等价,而由于个罪的犯罪构成所抽象的本来就是具有相同性质的犯罪现象,立法者不可能将性质迥异的犯罪现象抽象为同一罪的犯罪构成要件。可见这种等价已在立法阶段解决而无在理论上另行判断之必要。第六章,不纯正不作为犯的作为义务理论。作为义务理论是整个不纯正不作为犯理论的核心。在作为义务的性质上,它只能是民法、行政法或诉讼法等性质的义务,而不包含刑事法律义务和单纯的道德义务,作为义务的内容是保护其他部门法法益而非刑法法益。不纯正不作为犯的作为义务是指事先由刑法之外的其他部门法规定并经刑法确认的行为人应当实施特定的行为(以作为方式)以保护其他部门法法益的义务。能够引起民法、行政法、诉讼法等法律义务的事由(即作为义务的来源)包含如下两种情形:(1)法律的明文规定;(2)法律行为。法律明文规定的义务包括被部门法具体化的宪法性义务、完整部门法规范规定的义务及未违反法律效力等级层次的规章制度、条例、行业守则等规定的义务。而能够引起作为义务的法律行为则包含合同行为、自愿行为、先行行为及特定情况下的违反公序良俗行为等四类。其中,合同行为引起作为义务以合同有效为前提;自愿行为(无因管理)所引起作为义务的依据源于其本身的目的;违反公序良俗行为引起作为义务应当限于民事活动之情形;先行行为既可以是合法行为也可以是违法行为(其中,违法行为既可以是一般违法行为也可以是犯罪行为),既可以是有责行为也可以是完全无责的行为,但在行为方式上,先行行为只限于作为的方式而不包含不作为的方式。在作为义务来源问题上还存在一种颇具影响的所谓的实质作为义务理论。实质作为义务理论批判形式作为义务理论不能回答为什么上述情形能够引起作为义务从而未能揭示不纯正不作为犯成立的实质法理依据,因此提出了形形色色的所谓的实质作为理论。对于实质作为义务理论,本文持否定态度,主要在于,实质作为义务理论在其内在动因、论理逻辑、作为义务性质认识及理论现状等方面都存在着根本性的悖谬。结语:不纯正不作为犯的立法评析。有关不纯正不作为犯的立法主要涉及立法方式和立法内容问题,在立法方式上本文主张应采取总则规定的模式,在立法内容上则只需对作为义务性质及量刑作出规定即可。据此提出了有关不纯正不作为犯立法的理论方案。更多还原

【Abstract】 Though offense of Pseudo-Omission Crimes was proposed nearly two hundreds years ago, the issue has been a stubborn matter in criminal law; And different kinds of opinions in this area makes it necessary to do further study. The subject of this dissertation is the fundamental elements of the offense of Pseudo-Omission Crimes, including the concept, the causality and the act duty, the omission action, and the relationship with the principle of legality. The paper consists of eight chapters and is divided as follows:Preface. This chapter briefly introduces the theoretical status quo of the offense of Pseudo-Omission Crimes and the analysis of the quo is that the existing criminal theories cannot interpret the scientific concept of behavior. On the basis of the analysis, this part aims at the argument and solves the concrete logical approaches of basic problems of the offense of Pseudo-Omission Crimes.ChapterⅠ. The history and legislative outline of the offense of Pseudo -Omission Crimes. There are two parts in this chapter. The first part introduces the history of the offense of Pseudo-Omission Crimes in continental law system whose main steps are: the seeds of doctrine of obligation and the doctrine of causality, infraction and bails. The second part presents the legislative conditions of the offense of Pseudo-Omission Crimes in the world, which includes two main law systems. The concept of the offense of Pseudo-Omission Crimes does not exist in common law system, whereas in continental law system, it usually employs general provisions to legislate the offense of Pseudo-Omission Crimes which involves the prescriptive matter of obligation of omission, equivalent and sentencing.ChapterⅡ. The act of omissions. The notion of act is the foundation in the criminal law system. According to different criterions the act can be differentiated to several types, yet, of all types the most perplexed is the act of omissions. In order to demonstrate the issue of the act, in theory multiform doctrines of the acts are put forward, including the act of natural causality, act of purpose, social act theory, act of personality and passive act theory and the like. Nevertheless, these doctrines do not give a convincing interpretation of the issue of the act of omission which is still a stubborn problem in the existing criminal theory. By analyzing the primary existence and the act of mankind-labor element, the aim of this chapter is to generalize the universal sense conception of human act abstractly. That is, the human act should be a procedure in which the objective conditions should be controlled by the main body or should be controlled impact the state of the given objects; there are four basic factors, namely, the objective conditions, the main body, the subject and the object. Compared with former other theories, the theory of control act has two most outstanding characteristics. One is claiming the subjective element as the pivotal section of act, the other is specially emphasizing the element of objective condition depended upon by the act. However, these two remarked contents, which always ignored by former other act theories, are the breakthrough for traditional act theory.According to the theory of control act, the act of omissions refers to a kind of actions which the actors should control the process of natural causality or actions of others. The fundamental difference between the act and the acts of omissions lies in the different objective conditions upon which the two rely. The objective conditions depended upon by the act of omissions only refers to the course of natural causality and the actions of others but do not contain the bodily conditions of the actors, which, however, is an essential unit of the act. To be more exact, the actors know or shall know the course of natural causality or the nature of others and terminates the bodily conditions of the actors themselves purposely or inadvertently to impact the subjects; then it is objective conditions beyond the actors that influence the state of subjective existence. In this way, the element of objective conditions enriches the subjective offense of act of omissions, the content of which, therefore, is not empty or fictions but practical. Based on this, it is easy to interpret the act of omissions.ChapterⅢ. The notion of the offense of Pseudo-Omission Crimes. Definiting the notion of the offense of Pseudo-Omission Crimes involves the standard for distinction both between the acts and the act of omissions and, the criminal acts and the criminal omissions, the denomination and definition of the offense of Pseudo-Omission Crimess, and the categorization of the criminal omissions.The division between the criminal acts and the criminal omissions bases upon the differences between the acts and the omissions, or bases upon the actors’ actions of practical offense. According to the theory of control act, the act of omissions refers to a kind of actions which the actors should control the process of natural causality or actions of others. The fundamental difference between the act and the acts of omissions lies in the different objective conditions upon which the two rely. The objective conditions depended upon by the act of omissions do not include the bodily conditions of the actors, which, whereas, is an essential unit of the acts. In other words, the difference between the acts and the act of omissions lies in whether the bodily conditions of the actors have impacted the existence of the criminal objects. In this case, the criminal acts mean the actors do omissions during the offence. The difference between the two base upon whether the bodily conditions of the actors have impacted the criminal objects. Because the criminal objects belong to objective circumstances of a crime, the definition between the criminal acts and the criminal omissions should not be detached from the concrete provisions of the criminal law norm. Upon above mentioned criterion, it is easier to distinguish certain criminal acts which seemed apparently complicated.Although there are various classifications of the criminal omissions in theory, it is most theoretical and practical to divide the criminal omissions into Genuine Omission Crimes and Pseudo-Omission Crimes. The Genuine Omission Crimes refers to a kind of crimes which the actors perform an act of omission role and violate the rules of criminal law only accomplished by the act of omissions; and the Pseudo-Omission Crimes means the actors use the act of omissions to implement the crime which generally accomplished by the acts. These two crimes belong to the criminal omissions in substance, moreover, pure and pute. Hereby, theoretically these two criminal appellations are not appropriate. Compared with other imperfect names, these two appellations of the Genuine Omission Crimes and the Pseudo-Omission Crimes have been so for quite some time and received and extensive used in the law world, and here will still to employ.ChapterⅣ. Causal theory of the Pseudo-Omission Crimes. Since German scholar Luden questioned the causality of omission crimes in mid-nineteenth century, the theoretical circle of the criminal law of continental law system has never ceased to dispute and has not given a convincing conclusion. The reason why the causal theory of the criminal omissions will be this embarrassment is that the imperfections of the causal theory of traditional criminal law. Some imperfections like in systematic orientation, subject investigated and study task. In substance, the causality of criminal law is a procedure that causality of the actors’ subjective offense impacts the object. In fact, judging whether there will be causality in criminal law is that judging whether the procedure between the actors’ subjective offenses impact the objects and the occurrence of subsistent endangered effect accordant with each other. Or it is the procedure of logical reasoning that judging between the subsistent endangered effect and whether within the actors’ subjective offenses rang caused the consequences. In sum, it is a matter that judging some subsistent endangered effect whether could bring into a certain criminal act.It seemed that it is natural conditions or actions of others caused the consequences because of the criminal omissions without the physical factors of the actors, therefore, the consequences apparently do not correlate with the actors. In this case, the only choice is to seek the linkage between the actors and the functioning objective conditions as well as the consequences within the range of subjective offenses of the actors. In the intended omission crimes, the actors know the development trend of a certain natural conditions or acts of others shall lead to some consequences which the actors ought to prevent by means of the bodily conditions but do not intervene; whereas in negligent omission crimes, the actors shall know or have been known the development trend of a certain natural conditions or acts of others can result in some consequences which the actors should control but not. This is the causal relationship of the omissions crimes.ChapterⅤ. Pseudo-Omission Crimes and the principle of legality. the principle of legality experienced from early absolute theory to relative theory, and to a certain extent, the latter have modified the former. There are two main derivative theory of the principle of legality have directly relationship with the Pseudo-Omission Crimes, that is, definite principle and positive principle. The absolute principle of legality firmly believes the definite of the criminal rules, however, which is proved to be impracticable since from the principle’s cradle. The definite principle claims the definitude of the criminal rules not to be absolute but only to be positive. Moreover, the definite principle itself contains ambiguity which has its own considerable valuation and meaning. The criterion of definitude of the criminal rules ought to employ the standard of the normal persons, that is, a standard of predictable possibility of the normal persons, who own common judgment ability. Under the standard of the normal persons, if the normal persons are capable of knowing a certain criminal rules, and the acts mean meet the requirement of definite, if not, the acts are indefinite. In terms of Pseudo-Omission Crimes, the primary reason questioned from the definite principle of the principle of legality is that the criminal rules do not prescribe one of its based factors-the obligatory commissions; thereby the Pseudo-Omission Crimes do not meet the requirement of definite principle. And for the obligatory commissions of the Pseudo-Omission Crimes, the criminal rules do not clearly prescribe it because of the limitations of legislative technique, therefore this kind of obligatory could only been definited in theory, and theoretically, should only belong to the legal obligation. Considering the obligatory commissions of law, the normal persons may do not know the obligatory commissions on the law level, nevertheless, the certainty is that, it is maleficent or (according to the actors’ basic senses of what is wrong) wrong at least known or shall been known by the normal persons to infringe the obligations, so the obligatory commissions do not go beyond the dimension of predict or understanding of the normal persons’ abilities. In this situation, prescribed the components of Pseudo-Omission Crimes by the criminal law, on the one hand, is necessary, on the other hand, it is hard to say that the acts violate the definitude of the principle of legality even though the criminal rules do not prescribe the obligatory commissions for which do not go beyond the dimension of predict or understanding.The definite principle insist to limit the process of judges adapt themselves to the criminal rules, and the core is forbidden analogizes, that is, forbidding the judges create punitive provisions out of the criminal rules, yet broadening interpretations are allowed. The circumscription between the forbidden analogizes and the broadening interpretations is the most possible expression which only performs an excludable function upon condition that the conclusions do not conform the possible expressions clearly; whereas these conclusions that belong to the critical regions of the possible expressions should be distinguished from substantive justice, that is, the conclusions must be in accordance with the common sense, the common truth and the common thinking. However, the offense of Pseudo-Omission Crimess and the theory of definiteness, the opinion of scholar is that the punishment of the offense of Pseudo-Omission Crimess is the analogize falling to the criminal acts constitutive requirements, so in this case, the conclusions violate the principle of legality. Whereas the thesis holds that, according to the provisions of the whole laws, the criminal omissions infringe the prohibitive norms as well as the rules of order. And because all the specific provisions of criminal law are the prohibitive norms, and both the criminal acts and the criminal omissions violate the prohibitive norms of criminal law, the constitute requirements of a certain criminal act as well as the criminal omissions’. Therefore, the punishment of the offense of Pseudo-Omission Crimess is not analogize apply the criminal acts’ constitute requirements but the constitute requirements of the criminal omissions itself. In a word, the punishment of the offense of Pseudo-Omission Crimess is in accord with the definiteness of the principle of legality.In continental law system, the imperfection of crime systems and the cognition error of the offense of Pseudo-Omission Crimess’ normative structure directly lead to the generation of equivalence theory which holds that the criminal rules only enact the constitute requirements of the criminal acts but not the criminal omissions’. But in fact, there is difference of ontological structure between the offence of Pseudo-Omission Crimess and the criminal acts. In this case, to make use of the constitute requirements of the criminal acts to cover the objects of the offense of Pseudo-Omission Crimess must be some problems which could be solved by the equivalence theory. However, the thesis holds that, the constitute requirements of the offense of Pseudo-Omission Crimess and the criminal acts should be and should only be the same nature equivalence though judged by the same statutory sentence. And for the summarize of the constitutions of individual crimes have the same properties of criminal phenomena, that means, the equivalence has been solved at the legislative stage and it is not necessary to judge in theory.ChapterⅥ. The act duty theory of the offense of Pseudo-Omission Crimess. The act duty theory is the core of the whole theory of the offense of Pseudo-Omission Crimess. The nature of act duties should only be the duties of the administrative law, the procedure law and the civil law but do not contain the criminal legal duties and the pure moral obligations; and the contents of act duties is protecting the legal interests of branch laws but not the criminal law’s. the act duties of the offense of Pseudo-Omission Crimess refer to the actors who have been prescribed by the laws except the criminal law and validated by the criminal laws shall perform specific actions (by means of the acts ) to protect the legal interests duties beyond the criminal law.And there are two possibilities which can cause the law duties of the administrative law, the procedure law and the civil law (namely the origins of the act duties): (1) the law expresses provisions; (2) juristic acts. The duties of the law express provisions include the obligations enacted by the legal effect rules and regulations and rules of conduct, the constitutional obligations crystallized by the branch laws and, the duties enacted by the whole branch laws rules. And the act duties caused by the juristic acts include the advance behaviors and illegal acts of public order and good custom in specific cases, contract obligations and voluntary acts, explained in detail as follows. The act duties caused by the contract obligations should be based on the premise of the contract in effect; The act duties gists caused by the voluntary acts ( non-cause management ) should root in the motives of the voluntary acts; The act duties caused by the illegal acts of public order and good custom should be restricted within the civil activities; And the advance behaviors, which in behavior way shall only be acted, can be lawful acts or illegal activities (and here, the illegal activities can be common offenses as well as criminal acts ) and, obligated behaviors or completely unanswerable behaviors as well.Besides, there is a kind of theory called the substantial theory of act duty about the origination of the act duties. By criticizing the formal theory of act duty which cannot interpret the substantial bases of the offense of Pseudo-Omission Crimes, various so-called substantial theory of act duty appeared. The thesis denies the importance of the substantial theory of act duty, for which there are some fundamental errors in recognition of nature of act duty, theoretical status quo, logic interpretation and internal motive. Conclusion: On legislation of the offense of Pseudo-Omission Crimes. The legislation of the offense of Pseudo-Omission Crimes mainly involves the legislative method and legislative contents. To the legislative method, the thesis claims to employ stipulating in the general provisions; and to the legislative contents, the only way is to prescribe the nature of the act duties and sentencing. Thereafter, the thesis constructs the legislation of theoretical scheme.更多还原