实行过限是附随于共同犯罪过程中的一种特殊的犯罪形态，是指“实行犯实施了某种超出共同犯罪故意的犯罪行为”，而其他共同犯罪人对该行为不存在主观过错，于是过限行为的刑事责任由实施该行为的人单独承担。数额犯则是指“以法定的数额作为犯罪既遂标准或量刑因素的一种犯罪类型”。对于数额共犯下的实行过限，由于数额犯本身的特殊性使得其犯罪故意也存在特殊性，从而使认定该类实行过限成为了刑事司法实践中的疑难问题。
本文除了引言之外分为五个部分，共计20030字：
第一部分是典型案例。首先将六个典型案例依次举出，然后说明每个案例的不同之处以及对于典型案例中的被告人是否构成实行过限存在的争议的焦点。
第二部分是数额犯与实行过限的理论分析。首先对数额犯的理论进行分析，表述了刑法理论中对于数额犯的代表性观点，在此基础上总结出何为数额犯以及明确数额犯可分为结果数额犯和行为数额犯。然后归纳了共同犯罪实行过限的概念、特征以及构成，另外还对共同犯罪中的犯罪故意的类型进行了分析。
第三部分是数额共犯实行过限的司法认定。以对数额共犯下当然且必须存在实行过限的肯定为逻辑基础，对数额共犯中对认识内容不明确的几种犯罪故意进行分析，总结出数额共犯实行过限可分为不同性质的实行过限、同性质的实行过限以及关联的实行过限，并且针对三种不同的数额共犯实行过限的类型明确相应的认定标准，主要应当以临时实行行为的犯罪与原来共谋罪行的性质的差异、其他共犯在共同犯罪中的地位和作用以及是否在场、当场或事后的即时表现等具体因素来进行综合判断是否存在实行过限。
第四部分是数额共犯实行过限刑事责任的承担。首先根据刑法中的罪责自负的原则，分析了过限行为的刑事责任应当由实施该行为的共犯人单独承担的理论，然后以此为基础，根据数额共犯中实行过限类型的不同，明确了过限者和其他共犯人在不同的实行过限类型下应当承担何种刑事责任。
第五部分是研究结论。运用本文中归纳出的数额共犯实行过限的类型和认定标准以及相应的刑事责任承担的理论对文章开始的六个典型案例进行分析后得出结论，使得争议得到合理的解决。
Once practicing the limit is to attach with at a kind of special crime appearance in the common crime process, mean"implementation made to carry out a certain outrun joint use commit crime intentional criminal offence", but other common crime persons vs the behavior's nonexistent and subjective fault, hence lead limit behavioral pertaining to crime responsibility from carry out the behavioral of the person undertake alone.The quantity makes to then point "use official quantity as a crime since hence a kind of crime type of standard or the quantity Xing factor".For under the quantity accomplice of once practiced a limit, because the quantity makes oneself of the special make its crime intentionally also exist special and make to affirm that the type of judicatory that once practiced limit to become pertaining to crime practices a medium difficulty question thus.
This text in addition to preface outside is divided into five fractions, add up to 20030 words:
The first part is the illustrative case. First points out in turn six illustrative cases, then explained that each case difference as well as regarding illustrative case in accused person whether to constitute implements has limited the existence the dispute focal point.<dnt> the </dnt> second part is the amount violates with has implemented the theoretical analysis which limits. The first theory which violates to the amount carries on the analysis, has indicated in the criminal law theory the representative viewpoint which violates regarding the amount, based on this summarizes what violates as well as is clear about the amount commit for the amount to be possible to divide into the result amount to violate with the behavior amount commit. Then induced the joint offense to implement the concept which, the characteristic as well as the constitution limited, in addition has carried on the analysis to joint offense's crime type intentionally.
The third part is the amount accomplice practices the judicature which limits to recognize. By to amount accomplice under and certainly must exist implements has limited definitely is the logical foundation, to the amount accomplice to knew that the content not explicit several kind of crimes carry on the analysis intentionally, summarizes the amount accomplice to implement has limited may divide into the heterogeneity to implement has limited, the homogeneous archery target to implement has limited as well as the connection .
The fourth part is the amount accomplice implements has limited the legal responsibility undertaking. First principle which is proud according to the criminal law in responsibility for an offense, the theory which analyzed has limited the behavior the legal responsibility to by implement the accomplice person who this behavior undertakes alone, then take this as the foundation, implemented according to the amount accomplice in has limited the type the difference, has been clear about limiting and other accomplice person, in different implemented has limited under the type to undertake what kind of legal responsibility.<dnt> the </dnt> fifth part studies the conclusion. In utilization this article induces the amount accomplice has implemented the type which limits and recognized standard as well as the corresponding legal responsibility undertakes theory starts after the article six illustrative cases which carry on the analysis to draw the conclusion, enables the dispute to obtain the reasonable solution.
This text in addition to preface outside is divided into five fractions, add up to 20030 words:
The first part is the illustrative case. First points out in turn six illustrative cases, then explained that each case difference as well as regarding illustrative case in accused person whether to constitute implements has limited the existence the dispute focal point.<dnt> the </dnt> second part is the amount violates with has implemented the theoretical analysis which limits. The first theory which violates to the amount carries on the analysis, has indicated in the criminal law theory the representative viewpoint which violates regarding the amount, based on this summarizes what violates as well as is clear about the amount commit for the amount to be possible to divide into the result amount to violate with the behavior amount commit. Then induced the joint offense to implement the concept which, the characteristic as well as the constitution limited, in addition has carried on the analysis to joint offense's crime type intentionally.
The third part is the amount accomplice practices the judicature which limits to recognize. By to amount accomplice under and certainly must exist implements has limited definitely is the logical foundation, to the amount accomplice to knew that the content not explicit several kind of crimes carry on the analysis intentionally, summarizes the amount accomplice to implement has limited may divide into the heterogeneity to implement has limited, the homogeneous archery target to implement has limited as well as the connection .
The fourth part is the amount accomplice implements has limited the legal responsibility undertaking. First principle which is proud according to the criminal law in responsibility for an offense, the theory which analyzed has limited the behavior the legal responsibility to by implement the accomplice person who this behavior undertakes alone, then take this as the foundation, implemented according to the amount accomplice in has limited the type the difference, has been clear about limiting and other accomplice person, in different implemented has limited under the type to undertake what kind of legal responsibility.<dnt> the </dnt> fifth part studies the conclusion. In utilization this article induces the amount accomplice has implemented the type which limits and recognized standard as well as the corresponding legal responsibility undertakes theory starts after the article six illustrative cases which carry on the analysis to draw the conclusion, enables the dispute to obtain the reasonable solution.
温馨提示：答案为网友推荐，仅供参考
第1个回答 2011-08-17
我靠，这么多啊，这翻译费老大劲了。你还是用网上翻译自己慢慢翻译吧。
第2个回答 2011-08-17
Of limit is collateral at joint crime in the process of a special kind of crime pattern, it is to point to "make some of the implementation of deliberate crime than common crime", and other common criminal behavior does not exist to the subjective fault, so a limit the criminal responsibility of behavior by the implementation of the behavior of the single person to assume. The amount is refers to "make in legal amount as crime accomplishment standard or sentencing factors of a crime type". For the amount of accomplice of limited, due to the particularity of the amount committed itself has made their deliberate crime, so that there are also special that this kind of limit become the criminal judicial practice of difficulty.
This paper is divided into five citations in addition to outside, a total of 20030 words: part
The first part is the typical case. First will 6 ?
This paper is divided into five citations in addition to outside, a total of 20030 words: part
The first part is the typical case. First will 6 ?
第3个回答 2011-08-17
汗。。。
