虚假诉讼罪的实行行为是行为犯还是结果犯的问题是目前未能在学者中达成一致看法的争议问题。这一问题的结论不但涉及理论上对虚假诉讼罪本质认识的正确与否，也关系到司法实务对虚假诉讼罪的处理是否公正。在此背景下，本文以“虚假诉讼罪实行行为研究——以行为犯与结果犯相关争议为切入点”为题，以期就这一问题给出合理的回答。 回答这一问题的前提有二：首先，要知道行为犯结果犯的基本概念是什么？其次，要明确虚假诉讼罪实行行为规制范围的边界为何？就第一个问题而言，虽然行为犯与结果犯是大陆法系由来已久的概念，但是对于行为犯的概念表述哪怕是在各个国家刑法理论内部也未能形成一致的观点，更有学者基于一切犯罪都要以结果为前提直接否定了行为犯概念存在的空间。本文在这一部分的讨论首先基于行为犯概念在解释犯罪未完成形态及因果关系上不可替代的意义而肯定了行为犯概念存在的空间；进而将行为犯和其他犯罪概念的对应关系进行了梳理；最后就行为犯和结果犯概念表述不一致的问题，本文尝试给出的可能存在的解决方案是在保留“行为犯是行为与结果同时发生的犯罪”和“行为犯是不以结果的发生为既遂要件的犯罪”这两种概念表述的基础上，将这两种概念分别与行为犯中的纯正行为犯和不纯正行为犯相对应。就虚假诉讼罪实行行为的相关争议问题而言，本文得出的三点结论分别是第一，虚假诉讼罪不需要以“恶意串通”为要件；第二，虚假诉讼罪实行行为中的“捏造”应当仅限于“凭空捏造”，排除本罪对“部分捏造”行为的定罪处罚；第三，将纯粹隐瞒的不作为方式排出在本罪处罚的范围之外。 虚假诉讼罪的实行行为是行为犯还是结果犯的讨论以上述两章的结论为基础，本文给出可能合理的结论是：虚假诉讼罪根据实行行为自身的性质，分为可能侵害具体某一人合法权益的模式（如伪造债权债务逃避真实债务）以及不会侵害具体某一人合法权益的模式（如通过诉讼对驰名商标进行非法确认以及规避商品房限购政策等）。对于可能侵害他人合法权益的虚假诉讼罪，其犯罪完成形态与诬告陷害罪相类似，即是否实际造成对他人权益的损害并不影响本罪既遂的成立，这类虚假诉讼罪成立不纯正的行为犯；而不会具体侵害某一人合法权益的模式，由于其侵害司法秩序的后果与犯罪的行为同时发生，这种情况下不会再产生一个可以与行为相分离而又被刑法所额外规制的结果，因此成立纯正的行为犯。综上，虚假诉讼罪不同的实行行为分别成立纯正的行为犯和不纯正的行为犯，即虚假诉讼罪以成立行为犯为宜。

The question of whether the practice of false litigation is a behavioral offense or a result of a crime has not yet reached a consensus among scholars. The conclusion of this controversial issue involves not only the correctness of the theoretical understanding of the nature of false litigation but also the correctness of judicial practice in dealing with false litigation. In this context, this article is based on the "investigation of behavior in the false litigation crime - the relevant disputes between the behavioral offense and the outcome offense" as the starting point, in order to give a reasonable answer to this question. There are two prerequisites for answering this question: First, what is the basic concept of the crime committed? Secondly, what are the constituent elements of the behavior of the crime of false litigation? As far as the first question is concerned, although the behavioral offense and the result of the crime are the long-standing concepts of the civil law system, the concept of the behavioral offense has not yet formed a consistent view within each country, and more scholars are based on all crimes. It is necessary to directly deny the existence of the concept of behavioral crimes based on the results. The discussion in this part of the thesis firstly affirms the existence of the concept of behavioral offense based on the meaning of behavioral offense in explaining the unfinished form of crime and the irreplaceable meaning of causality; then the correspondence between behavioral offense and other criminal concepts is sorted out; Finally, in view of the inconsistency between the concept of behavioral offense and the result of different crimes in different viewpoints, this paper believes that the possible solution is to retain the “criminal crime is the crime that occurs at the same time as the behavior” and “the behavioral offense is not the result of the occurrence. On the basis of the two concepts of “criminal crimes”, these two concepts correspond to pure behavioral offenses and impure behavioral offenses in behavioral crimes. As far as the disputes concerning the conduct of false litigation are concerned, the three conclusions drawn in this paper are the first. The false litigation crime does not need to be “malicious collusion” as the essential element. Second, the false litigation crime is “fabricated”. "It should be limited to "made out of thin air", excluding the conviction of "situ fabrication" of this crime; third, the purely concealed inaction is excluded from the scope of this crime. The conclusions of this paper are based on the conclusions of the first two chapters. The basic conclusion of the crime of false litigation is the behavioral offense or the result of the crime. The basic conclusion of this paper is that the false litigation crime is divided into the model that may infringe the legitimate rights and interests of a specific person according to the nature of the conduct of the act (such as forging creditor's rights and debts to escape the truth). Debt) and the model that does not infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of a specific person (such as the illegal confirmation of well-known trademarks through litigation and the evasion of commercial housing purchase restrictions). For the crime of false litigation that may infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of others, the form of completion of crime is similar to the crime of false accusation, that is, whether the actual damage to the rights and interests of others does not affect the establishment of the sin of this crime, and the crime of such false litigation is not pure. A model that does not specifically infringe a person’s lawful rights and interests, because the consequences of its violation of the judicial order coincide with the act of the crime, in which case there will be no more separation from the behavior and additional regulation by the criminal law. As a result, a pure behavioral criminal was established. Since "Explanation" limits the practice of false litigation crimes to "nothing, nothing, and type", which narrows the scope of practice of this crime, then the drawbacks of "behavioral offenses" premature sin can be avoided to a certain extent.