帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪的规范属性与解释纠偏

信息技术的发展推动网络犯罪参与结构由传统犯罪层级式的金字塔结构向扁平式的链条结构转变，使得立法增设帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪以应对犯罪参与模式的改变，解决网络犯罪行为不适应传统共同犯罪理论的难题。立法者增设帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪以规制“不契合共犯理论的帮助行为”，但未就帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪的性质加以说明。理论界关于该罪性质的探讨主要着眼于共犯性的视角，但是以共犯性解释该罪的性质又会产生正犯不存在或者难以查证时归责标准阙如、意思联络趋弱而难以认定共犯、共犯与正犯危害性异化致使按照共犯理论归责违背罪刑均衡原则等适用困境。量刑规则说、共犯正犯化等以完全共犯性为着力点的学说，忽视了帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪的正犯属性，造成了适用困境并违背了对该罪的立法初衷。故此，跳出传统的对罪名性质解释单一的桎梏，承认部分帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪的正犯性，根据“契合共犯理论的帮助行为”与“不契合共犯理论的帮助行为”的不同，在“共犯性”与“正犯性”双重视角下区分认定该罪的性质，使得同一罪名在不同的适用情形下呈现动态的性质解读，以突破现有理论的适用困境。这对于契合司法实务向多元性与不可预测性发展，应对因传统刑法理论相对滞后而导致适用冲突不断的现实难题，对纠偏帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪的适用等，尤为必要。

Normative attributes and interpretation correction of the crime of assisting in information cybercrime

The development of information technology has promoted the transformation of the participation structure of cybercrime from the pyramid structure of traditional crime hierarchy to the flat chain structure, making it necessary to add the crime of assisting in information network criminal activities to the legislation to cope with the change in the mode of criminal participation and solve the problem that network criminal activities do not fit traditional theories of joint offence. The legislator added “assisting behavior that does not fit the theory of joint offence” to regulate the crime of assisting in information network crime, but did not explain the nature of the crime. The theoretical discussion on the nature of this crime mainly focuses on the perspective of joint offence, but interpreting the nature of this crime based on joint offence may lead to applicable dilemmas such as lack of imputation standards when the principal offender does not exist or is difficult to verify, weakening of intention connection, and difficulty in identifying accomplices. Theories such as sentencing rules and the criminalization of accomplices focus entirely on full joint offence, which unilaterally ignores the property of principal offender in the crime of assisting in information network criminal activities, resulting in applicable dilemmas and violating the legislative intent of this crime. Therefore, it is necessary to break out of the traditional shackles of single interpretation of the nature of crimes, recognize the principal offender property of some crimes of assisting in information network criminal activities, distinguish and identify the nature of this crime under the dual perspectives of “joint offence” and “principal offender”, according to the difference between “assisting behavior that fits the theory of joint offence” and “assisting behavior that does not fit the theory of joint offence”, so that the same crime presents dynamic interpretation of nature in different applicable situations, in order to solve the applicable dilemma of existing theories, fit the realistic trend that judicial practice is developing towards diversity and unpredictability, but due to the relative lag of traditional criminal law theory, there are constant conflicts in application. It is particularly necessary to rectify the application of crimes of assisting in information network criminal activities.