网络技术的进步使得共同犯罪产生了不同于传统的“异化”现象。对于共犯的网络异化，刑法理论已经基于不同立场做出了一定程度的回应，并形成了以解决网络共犯实践异化问题为目的的网络共犯理论。然而，当前网络共犯理论未能全面解决网络共犯异化所导致的实践问题。因此，梳理现有共犯理论未能彻底解决实践异化问题的根本原因，并据此对共犯理论理论加以扬弃、总结出一条解决网络共犯问题的可行路径就有其必要性。本文以解决网络共犯实践异化问题为目标，通过剖析当前共犯理论难以解决实践问题的根本原因，沿着确定网络共犯基本立场，通过基本立场建构一套应对网络共犯实践问题的理论体系，并进而从理论上解决网络共犯实践异化问题的思路，试图提出一种基于网络时代共犯的新特征而实现的，以共犯基本概念为基础，以作用区分制为框架的共犯理论。正文共分五章：

第一章：网络共犯的实践异化表现与理论研究现状。通过以帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪为代表的特定罪名的大样本实证分析以及对典型案例进行具体分析两种方法相结合的方式，总结出当前网络共犯的实践异化现象主要呈现出实行行为分割、中立帮助行为扩张、共犯意思联络弱化、共犯行为独立化、过失共犯增加五个特点。围绕上述五个问题，总结了刑法理论在四个主要方面作出的回应，即对共犯应当采取何种具体区分方式的探讨、对中立帮助行为是否可罚，以及是否有必要扩大其处罚范围的探讨、围绕典型罪名探讨针对网络共犯问题的正犯化立法现象的合理性，以及在网络共犯的视野下探讨关于共犯成立范围、处罚依据以及狭义共犯与正犯关系等共犯的基本理论问题。

第二章：当前针对网络共犯异化理论研究的问题及其成因。针对网络共犯实践异化问题的理论主要体现出片面认识网络共犯现象，并进而特殊化网络共犯，忽视网络作为技术手段的工具性和网络共犯本身的时代性，并最终体现为理论研究多为“点对点”的形式，缺乏对共犯理论的整体性思考。导致上述问题产生的核心原因在于，理论上对共犯的本质概念研究不足；对共犯的具体区分方式上存在较大争议；共犯理论整体受限于旧派理论，难以在网络共犯实践状况的基础上实现系统性革新。在实践上，现有的研究成果忽视了网络技术的工具性特点，限缩了网络共犯的范围；基于教义学立场研究网络共犯也容易陷入解释论的固有缺陷之中，难以解决立法的固有缺陷，同时也存在倒置行为可罚性与刑事立法之间关系的逻辑问题。

第三章：应对网络共犯异化问题的基本立场及其选择。方法论、认识论、解释论三个层面的立场争议贯穿着整个共犯理论体系的研究。通过系统性地改良共犯理论以解决网络共犯问题首先必须明确三种具体立场的选择。在方法论上，与阶层论相比，要件论具备根植于马克思主义哲学和实质性地认识网络共犯的优势，在解决网络共犯异化问题上更为有效；在认识论上，主客观主义在面对网络共犯异化问题时各有优劣，对其进行选择就必须在沿着马克思主义哲学基本立场，坚持认识论上的主客观相统一；在解释论上，实质解释与形式解释争议的本质是对价值判断的争议，为解决网络共犯异化问题，应当立足社会危害性，对法规范中所蕴含的立法者的价值判断进行主客观相统一立场上的实质解释。

第四章：应对网络共犯异化问题的理论体系建构。从上述基本立场出发，可以通过综合改良传统共犯理论建构解决网络共犯问题的新共犯理论。新共犯论的基础在于共犯的概念，即形式上，共犯是指是两个以上的主体，以知晓自身处于共犯中的主观心态，客观上共同对危害结果加功，侵害了特定客体的犯罪行为；共犯的处罚依据上，形式的处罚依据在于刑法总则关于不同类型犯罪参与人的规定；实质的处罚依据在于犯罪参与人主客观相统一概念上的社会危害性。其次，共犯理论的框架采取单层次的作用区分制，确定主犯、从犯、胁从犯三种参与身份以及作为提示性规则的教唆犯。最后，在具体的理论内容上，以主客观相统一的立场改良因果共犯论，并在扬弃实行从属性的基础上，提出了以从犯的主观方面和客体从属于主犯为基本内容的要件论立场下的从犯从属理论。

第五章：网络共犯实践异化问题的解决方案。改良后的共犯理论能够实现对网络共犯五个实践异化现象的合理回应：作用区分制可以在实行行为被分割的情况下依托行为人的具体作用认定共同犯罪；以对他人共同犯罪参与的认识取代“合意”可以解决共犯独立和意思联络弱化之问题；通过具体区分犯罪参与的两层次主观心态，可以明确对过失共犯的处罚原则；通过主客观相统一原则下的客观因果性和行为人主观认识判断中立帮助行为的可罚性。在关于网络共犯的分则个罪问题上，“正犯化”在新的共犯理论中转变为共犯的扩张和处罚上的加重，只有通过立法确认共犯理论的优先适用以及审慎地新增扩张化罪名，才得以实现对网络共犯的合理定罪量刑。

网络技术的进步使得共同犯罪产生了不同于传统的“异化”现象。对于共犯的网络异化，刑法理论已经基于不同立场做出了一定程度的回应，并形成了以解决网络共犯实践异化问题为目的的网络共犯理论。然而，当前网络共犯理论未能全面解决网络共犯异化所导致的实践问题。因此，梳理现有共犯理论未能彻底解决实践异化问题的根本原因，并据此对共犯理论理论加以扬弃、总结出一条解决网络共犯问题的可行路径就有其必要性。本文以解决网络共犯实践异化问题为目标，通过剖析当前共犯理论难以解决实践问题的根本原因，沿着确定网络共犯基本立场，通过基本立场建构一套应对网络共犯实践问题的理论体系，并进而从理论上解决网络共犯实践异化问题的思路，试图提出一种基于网络时代共犯的新特征而实现的，以共犯基本概念为基础，以作用区分制为框架的共犯理论。正文共分五章：

第一章：网络共犯的实践异化表现与理论研究现状。通过以帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪为代表的特定罪名的大样本实证分析以及对典型案例进行具体分析两种方法相结合的方式，总结出当前网络共犯的实践异化现象主要呈现出实行行为分割、中立帮助行为扩张、共犯意思联络弱化、共犯行为独立化、过失共犯增加五个特点。围绕上述五个问题，总结了刑法理论在四个主要方面作出的回应，即对共犯应当采取何种具体区分方式的探讨、对中立帮助行为是否可罚，以及是否有必要扩大其处罚范围的探讨、围绕典型罪名探讨针对网络共犯问题的正犯化立法现象的合理性，以及在网络共犯的视野下探讨关于共犯成立范围、处罚依据以及狭义共犯与正犯关系等共犯的基本理论问题。

第二章：当前针对网络共犯异化理论研究的问题及其成因。针对网络共犯实践异化问题的理论主要体现出片面认识网络共犯现象，并进而特殊化网络共犯，忽视网络作为技术手段的工具性和网络共犯本身的时代性，并最终体现为理论研究多为“点对点”的形式，缺乏对共犯理论的整体性思考。导致上述问题产生的核心原因在于，理论上对共犯的本质概念研究不足；对共犯的具体区分方式上存在较大争议；共犯理论整体受限于旧派理论，难以在网络共犯实践状况的基础上实现系统性革新。在实践上，现有的研究成果忽视了网络技术的工具性特点，限缩了网络共犯的范围；基于教义学立场研究网络共犯也容易陷入解释论的固有缺陷之中，难以解决立法的固有缺陷，同时也存在倒置行为可罚性与刑事立法之间关系的逻辑问题。

第三章：应对网络共犯异化问题的基本立场及其选择。方法论、认识论、解释论三个层面的立场争议贯穿着整个共犯理论体系的研究。通过系统性地改良共犯理论以解决网络共犯问题首先必须明确三种具体立场的选择。在方法论上，与阶层论相比，要件论具备根植于马克思主义哲学和实质性地认识网络共犯的优势，在解决网络共犯异化问题上更为有效；在认识论上，主客观主义在面对网络共犯异化问题时各有优劣，对其进行选择就必须在沿着马克思主义哲学基本立场，坚持认识论上的主客观相统一；在解释论上，实质解释与形式解释争议的本质是对价值判断的争议，为解决网络共犯异化问题，应当立足社会危害性，对法规范中所蕴含的立法者的价值判断进行主客观相统一立场上的实质解释。

第四章：应对网络共犯异化问题的理论体系建构。从上述基本立场出发，可以通过综合改良传统共犯理论建构解决网络共犯问题的新共犯理论。新共犯论的基础在于共犯的概念，即形式上，共犯是指是两个以上的主体，以知晓自身处于共犯中的主观心态，客观上共同对危害结果加功，侵害了特定客体的犯罪行为；共犯的处罚依据上，形式的处罚依据在于刑法总则关于不同类型犯罪参与人的规定；实质的处罚依据在于犯罪参与人主客观相统一概念上的社会危害性。其次，共犯理论的框架采取单层次的作用区分制，确定主犯、从犯、胁从犯三种参与身份以及作为提示性规则的教唆犯。最后，在具体的理论内容上，以主客观相统一的立场改良因果共犯论，并在扬弃实行从属性的基础上，提出了以从犯的主观方面和客体从属于主犯为基本内容的要件论立场下的从犯从属理论。

第五章：网络共犯实践异化问题的解决方案。改良后的共犯理论能够实现对网络共犯五个实践异化现象的合理回应：作用区分制可以在实行行为被分割的情况下依托行为人的具体作用认定共同犯罪；以对他人共同犯罪参与的认识取代“合意”可以解决共犯独立和意思联络弱化之问题；通过具体区分犯罪参与的两层次主观心态，可以明确对过失共犯的处罚原则；通过主客观相统一原则下的客观因果性和行为人主观认识判断中立帮助行为的可罚性。在关于网络共犯的分则个罪问题上，“正犯化”在新的共犯理论中转变为共犯的扩张和处罚上的加重，只有通过立法确认共犯理论的优先适用以及审慎地新增扩张化罪名，才得以实现对网络共犯的合理定罪量刑。

The advancement of network technology has led to a phenomenon of alienation in joint crime, which is different from traditional ones.Criminal law theory has responded to the phenomenon of alienation of accomplices in cyberspace to a certain extent based on different perspectives, and has formed a network accomplice theory aimed at solving the problem of alienation in practice of network accomplices. However, the current theoretical response of criminal law to the alienation of network accomplice practice has not fully addressed the practical problems caused by network accomplices. Therefore, it is necessary to sort out the fundamental reasons why existing accomplice theories have not completely solved practical problems, and based on this, to develop theoretical responses, and summarize a feasible path to solve the problem of network accomplices. This article aims to solve the problem of alienation in the practice of network accomplices. By analyzing the fundamental reasons why the current theory of accomplices is difficult to solve practical problems, and following the determination of the basic position of network accomplices, a theoretical system is constructed to address the practical problems of network accomplices through the basic position, and then a theoretical approach is proposed to solve the problem of alienation in the practice of network accomplices. The article attempts to propose a new development feature of accomplices in the network era, based on the basic concept of accomplices and the framework of role differentiation. The main text is divided into five chapters:

Chapter 1: The Practice Alienation Manifestation and Theoretical Research Status of Network Accomplice. Through a combination of large sample empirical analysis of specific charges represented by the crime of aiding information network criminal activities and specific analysis of typical cases, it is summarized that the current practice alienation phenomenon of network accomplices mainly presents five characteristics: implementation of behavior segmentation, expansion of intermediate assistance behavior, weakening of accomplice intention communication, independence of accomplice behavior, and increase of negligent accomplices. Based on the above five issues, this article summarizes the responses of criminal law theory in four main aspects, namely the exploration of specific differentiation methods for accomplices, whether neutral assistance behavior can be punished, and whether it is necessary to expand its punishment scope. It also explores the rationality of legislation on the criminalization of network accomplices around typical charges, and explores the basic theoretical issues of accomplices in the perspective of network accomplices, such as the scope of establishment, punishment basis, and narrow relationship between accomplices and principal offenders.

Chapter 2: The prominent problems and main reasons for the theoretical response of network accomplices. The theoretical response to the problem of alienation in the practice of network accomplices mainly reflects a one-sided understanding of the phenomenon of network accomplices, and further particularizes network accomplices, ignoring the instrumental nature of the network as a technical means and the contemporaneity of network accomplices themselves. Ultimately, this is reflected in the fact that the theoretical response is mostly in a "point-to-point" form, lacking a holistic thinking of accomplice theory. The core reason for the above-mentioned problems is that there is insufficient research on the essential concept of accomplice in theory; There is significant controversy over the specific method of distinguishing accomplices; The theory of accomplice is limited by the old school theory as a whole, and it is difficult to achieve systematic innovation based on the practical situation of network accomplices. In practice, existing research results have overlooked the instrumental characteristics of network technology and limited the scope of network accomplices; Based on a doctrinal perspective, studying online accomplices can also easily fall into the inherent flaws of interpretive theory, making it difficult to solve the inherent flaws in legislation. At the same time, there are also logical issues regarding the relationship between the condensability of inverted behavior and criminal legislation.

Chapter 3: The Choice of Positions in Response to the Theory of Network Accomplice. The position disputes at the three levels of methodology, epistemology, and interpretive theory run through the research of the entire accomplice theory system. To solve the problem of network accomplice through systematic improvement of the theory of accomplice, it is necessary to first clarify the choice of three specific positions. In terms of methodology, compared with the theory of hierarchy, the theory of essential elements has the advantage of being rooted in Marxist philosophy and China's criminal legislation and judicial practice; In epistemology, both subjectivism and objectivism have their own advantages and disadvantages. To choose from them, one must adhere to the basic position of Marxist philosophy and adhere to the unity of subjectivism and objectivism in epistemology; In interpretive theory, the essence of the dispute between substantive interpretation and formal interpretation is the dispute over value judgments. It should be based on the social harmfulness and unify the subjective and objective perspectives of the value judgments of legislators contained in legal norms.

Chapter 3: The Choice of Positions in Dealing with the Problem of Alienation of Internet Coexistence. The position disputes at the three levels of methodology, epistemology, and interpretive theory run through the research of the entire accomplice theory system. To solve the problem of network accomplice through systematic improvement of the theory of accomplice, it is necessary to first clarify the choice of three specific positions. In terms of methodology, compared with the three-tier doctrine, the theory of four-element regime has the advantage of being rooted in Marxist philosophy and China's criminal legislation and judicial practice; In epistemology, both subjectivism and objectivism have their own advantages and disadvantages. To choose from them, one must adhere to the basic position of Marxist philosophy and adhere to the unity of subjectivism and objectivism in epistemology; In interpretive theory, the essence of the dispute between substantive interpretation and formal interpretation is the dispute over value judgments. It should be based on the social harmfulness and unify the subjective and objective perspectives of the value judgments of legislators contained in legal norms.

Chapter 4: Theoretical System Construction for Dealing with the Problem of Alienation of Network Coexistence. Starting from the above basic standpoint, a new theory of accomplice can be constructed to solve the problem of network accomplice by comprehensively improving the traditional theory of accomplice. The basis of the new theory of accomplice lies in the concept of accomplice. Formally, accomplice refers to the criminal behavior of two or more subjects who, knowing their subjective mentality in accomplice, objectively contribute to the harmful results and infringe upon a specific object; On the basis of punishment for accomplices, the formal punishment is based on the provisions of the General Principles of the Criminal Law on different types of criminal participants; The substantive basis for punishment lies in the social harmfulness of the concept of subjective and objective unity among the criminal participants. Secondly, the framework of accomplice theory adopts a single-level distinction of roles, determining the three participating identities of principal offender, accomplice, and coerced accomplice, as well as the instigator as a suggestive rule. Finally, in terms of specific theoretical content, we have improved the theory of causal accomplice from the perspective of integrating subjectivity and objectivity, and proposed the theory of accomplice subordination based on the basic content of the element theory, which emphasizes the subjective aspect of accomplices and the subordination of objects to the principal offender.

Chapter 5: Solutions to the alienation problem of network accomplice practice. Addressing the issue of network accomplices through improved accomplice theory. The improved theory of accomplices can achieve a reasonable response to the five practical alienation phenomena of network accomplices: the theory of accessory attributes can determine joint crimes based on the specific role of the perpetrator when the behavior is divided; Replacing "agreement" with the understanding of the participation of others in joint crimes can solve the problems of independent accomplices and weakened communication of intentions; By distinguishing the two levels of subjective mentality involved in criminal participation, the principle of punishment for negligent accomplices can be clarified; The penability of neutral assistance behavior can be judged through the objective causality under the principle of unity of subject and object, as well as the subjective understanding of the actor.In terms of the specific provisions and crimes related to network accomplices, "criminalization" has transformed into the expansion of accomplices and the aggravation of punishment in the new theory of accomplices. Only by confirming the priority application of accomplice theory through legislation and cautiously adding expanded charges can reasonable conviction and sentencing of network accomplices be achieved.