第一种观点是不可取的,理由是:要求所有个别共犯成立犯罪中止均须满足有效

The first view is undesirable. The reason is that all individual accomplices must be satisfied that the establishment of a criminal suspension must effectively prevent the occurrence of the entire joint criminal outcome. Obviously, they have different positions and different roles in the joint crime. Of the accomplices made the same request, which in fact disregarded the characteristics of the accomplice and the fact that the accomplice ’s ability to suspend the establishment of a crime was relatively unfair. The enthusiasm for establishing criminal suspension, which ultimately affects the purpose of criminal legislation to encourage the suspension of crime. If the first viewpoint goes to one extreme in terms of validity, then the second viewpoint goes to the other extreme, which is also undesirable. The reason is: for all individual accomplices, regardless of their status in the joint crime and the difference in the effect on the results of the joint crime, the abandonment of the criminal act will be used as the condition for the suspension of the crime, although the conditions for the suspension of the accessory crime are relaxed, But at the same time it also relaxed the conditions for the principal. After all, the principal ’s behavior is the decisive reason for the result of the joint crime. Therefore, the principal ’s establishment of the crime is suspended, and it is necessary to effectively prevent the outcome of the joint crime. It is reasonable and reasonable. In contrast, the third viewpoint has merits, because this viewpoint has noticed that in joint crimes, the effective conditions for the establishment of criminal suspension should be treated differently according to the status and role of the principal and accessory. But the shortcoming of the third view is that the conditions for the suspension of accessory crimes are too relaxed. The author puts forward a fourth point of view on the basis of the third point of view, that is, in joint crimes, the suspension of the establishment of the principal offense must be based on validity, and the termination of the establishment of the offense must be based on validity. The reason is: although the accomplice's status and status in the joint crime determine its ability to establish a criminal suspension is relatively weak, but this weakness is often limited to the implementation of organized joint crimes such as group crimes. Before or after the implementation of the crime, before the result of the crime, and in the case of simple joint crime, it is not impossible for the accessory to take active measures to effectively prevent the result of the joint crime. [Jin Xuan. A Brief Talk on Suspension of Crimes in Joint Crimes [J]. Legal System Expo, 2018, 93-94.] Therefore, the suspension of an accessory can be divided into two situations for the occurrence of a joint crime, namely, effective suspension Abort with invalid. When the accomplice takes measures to effectively prevent the result of the joint crime, it is effectively suspended; when the accomplice takes measures to effectively prevent the result of the joint crime, it is invalid. Then, How should the effective suspension and invalid suspension be treated differently in terms of sentencing; Article 24 of the Criminal Law stipulates: "For the suspension of the offender, if no damage is caused, the penalty shall be exempted; if the damage is caused, the penalty shall be reduced." Suspension can be consistent with legislation and can be treated differently in terms of sentencing. It can be seen that the establishment of the principal offender ’s suspension of criminality with validity as a necessary condition, and the subordinate criminal ’s suspension of criminality with validity as the reference condition, focus on the difference in the status and role of the principal and the secondary offenders in the joint crime, which is in line with the criminal law principles of equivalent guilt It fully embodies the legislative purpose of encouraging the suspension of crime, and its practical significance is obvious.

The first view is undesirable, on the grounds that the requirement that all individual accomplices establish a criminal suspension must meet the condition sought to effectively prevent the occurrence of the entire common crime outcome, and that it is clear that the same demands are made on accomplices who are in different positions and play different roles in the common crime, which is in fact disregarding the characteristics of the accomplice and the fact that the accessory to the establishment of the crime suspension is relatively weak, unjustly raising the conditions for the suspension of the crime, and that the obvious negative impact is to suppress the suspension of the establishment of the crime, This ultimately affects the purpose of criminal legislation to encourage the suspension of crime. If the first view goes to one extreme in terms of validity conditions, then the second point of view goes to the other extreme and is therefore undesirable. The reason is that all individual accomplices, irrespective of their position in the joint crime and the difference in their role in the outcome of the joint crime, shall be given the condition of the suspension of the establishment of the crime, although the suspension of the established offence has been relaxed, but at the same time the conditions are relaxed for the main offender. After all, the main offender's behavior is the decisive cause of the result of the common crime, therefore, the principal criminal establishment of the suspension of crime, in order to effectively prevent the occurrence of the common crime results as a necessary condition, reasonable and reasonable. In contrast, the third view has merit, since it has noted that the conditions for the validity of the suspension of the establishment of a crime should be treated differently in the joint offence, depending on the principal, the subordinate status and role. The third point, however, is that the conditions for an accessory to establish a suspension are too relaxed. On the basis of the third viewpoint, the author puts forward the fourth view, that is, in the joint crime, the principal offender's suspension of the establishment of a crime must take the validity as the necessary condition, and the suspension of the crime of the accomplice shall take the validity as the reference condition. The reason is that, although the accomplice's status and status in the joint crime determine smaller capacity to establish a joint crime, this weakness is often limited to the course of the commission of organized joint crimes, such as group crime, and it is not impossible for the accomplice to take positive measures to effectively prevent the co-offender severance in the case of the crime before and after the implementation of the crime, as well as in the case of simple co-crime. Kim Hyun. On the Suspension of Crime in Joint Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Therefore, the suspension of the accomplice can be divided into two kinds of situations for the occurrence of the common crime result, that is, effective suspension and invalid suspension. Effective suspension when an accessorised person takes measures to effectively prevent the occurrence of a common crime outcome, or when an accessory measure fails to effectively prevent the outcome of a common crime. Then, how to distinguish between effective and invalid suspension in sentencing, article 24 of the Criminal Law stipulates: "If the suspension has not caused any damage, the punishment shall be waived; "Effective and invalid suspensions can therefore be consistent with legislation and can be treated differently in sentencing." It can be seen that the establishment of the principal offender's establishment of the suspension of the crime is necessary condition, the crime of the establishment of the suspension of the crime to the validity as a reference for the view, is to focus on the main, accomplice in the common crime of the difference in the status and role of the criminal law, in line with the criminal law principle of considerable guilt, fully embodies the legislative purpose of encouraging the suspension of the crime, its practical significance is obvious.

The first view is not desirable, because it requires that all individual accomplices must meet the conditions of effectively preventing the occurrence of the whole result of the joint crime when they establish a crime. Obviously, the same requirements are put forward for the accomplices who are in different positions and play different roles in the joint crime, In fact, it ignores the characteristics of the accomplice and the fact that the ability of the accomplice to establish a crime to stop is relatively weak, which unfairly improves the conditions for the accomplice to establish a crime to stop, and its obvious negative effect is to suppress the enthusiasm of the accomplice to establish a crime to stop, thus ultimately affecting the purpose of the criminal legislation to encourage the suspension of crime. If the first view goes to one extreme in terms of validity conditions, then the second view goes to the other extreme, so it is not desirable. The reason is: for all the individual accomplices, regardless of their position in the joint crime and the difference in the effect on the result of the joint crime, they all take giving up the criminal act as the condition for the establishment of a crime suspension. Although the conditions for the establishment of an accomplice crime suspension are relaxed, the conditions for the principal offender are also relaxed. After all, the behavior of the principal offender is the decisive reason for the result of joint crime. Therefore, it is reasonable and reasonable for the principal offender to set up the discontinuation of crime to effectively prevent the result of joint crime. In contrast, the third view has its advantages, because it has been noted that in a joint crime, it should be treated differently according to the different status and functions of the principal and accessory offenders in terms of the conditions for the validity of the establishment of a crime suspension. But the disadvantage of the third view is that it has too relaxed the conditions for the suspension of the accomplice to establish a crime. On the basis of the third view, the author puts forward the fourth view, that is, in the joint crime, the main offender's establishment crime suspension must take the validity as the necessary condition, and the accomplice's establishment crime suspension must take the validity as the reference condition. The reasons are as follows: Although the accomplice's ability to establish a crime suspension is relatively weak due to its status and status in the joint crime, this weakness is often limited to the implementation of organized joint crime such as group crime, before or after the implementation of the crime results, as well as in the case of simple joint crime, It is not impossible for accomplice to take active measures to prevent the result of joint crime effectively. [Jin Xuan. On the discontinuation of crime in joint crime [J]. Legal Expo, 2018, 93-94.] therefore, the discontinuation of accomplice can be divided into two situations for the occurrence of the result of joint crime, namely effective discontinuation and invalid discontinuation. When the accomplice takes measures to effectively prevent the result of joint crime, it is effective suspension; when the accomplice takes measures to effectively prevent the result of joint crime, it is invalid suspension. Then, how to distinguish between effective suspension and invalid suspension in sentencing? Article 24 of the criminal law stipulates: "for the suspended offender, if no damage is caused, the punishment shall be exempted; if damage is caused, the punishment shall be reduced." Therefore, effective suspension and invalid suspension can be consistent with legislation, and can be treated differently in sentencing. It can be seen that the view that the establishment of the main crime is based on the effectiveness, and the establishment of the accomplice is based on the difference of the status and role of the main crime and the accomplice in the joint crime, which conforms to the principle of criminal law with the same criminal responsibility, fully embodies the legislative purpose of encouraging the suspension of crime, and its practical significance is obvious.<br>