被害人参与型犯罪是近年来刑法理论研究的重要课题之一，而被害人危险接受中的行为人刑事归责问题则是该课题下的重要内容。当前，我国刑法学界对被害人危险接受问题还未能给予足够的重视，涉及该问题下的诸多子内容并没有形成共识，其中以最为重要的归责问题表现得尤为突出。研究被害人危险接受中刑事归责问题具有理论意义与实践价值，将被害人参与行为纳入研究视角，不仅有利于推进被害人教义学的纵深发展，而且还有助于公平划定被害人与行为人责任承担的疆域。鉴此，本文主要针对被害人危险接受中行为人刑事归责问题进行了全面审视与重构。

第一章被害人危险接受基本问题概述。首先，对被害人危险接受中的“被害人”与“危险”的性质作出了界定，被害人危险接受中的被害人必须是现实遭受到不法行为所侵害的主体，而且具有一定的假定性。危险接受中的“危险”应当是与行为人有关的，对被害人法益具有侵害可能性且其现实化具有一定盖然性。被害人危险接受是指，过失犯中的被害人明知自己实施的某种行为或者参与他人所实施的行为蕴含着对自己可能造成损害的危险，仍自愿实施或者参与其中，从而导致危险现实化的情形。被害人危险接受与被害人过错、自损行为等概念均存在一定差异，因而不能等同视之。实践中，成立一个合格的被害人危险接受应当具备三个条件，即被害人认识危险、被害人接受危险以及危险最终现实化为法益侵害结果。当前，危险接受问题由于缺乏立法规定以及在理论上未形成统一意见，导致司法实务中对于此类案件大多仍是坚持从传统的过失犯原理来进行解决，忽视了被害人自愿参与行为之于行为人不法的影响，而且类似案件往往并没有得到类似处理。

第二章被害人危险接受刑事归责理论述评。有关被害人危险接受刑事归责问题，近年来学界进行了一定探讨，相应地也形成了一些解决方案。注意义务相对化理论因缺乏排除行为人注意义务的充分说明、难以因被害人接受危险的行为而相对化，以及承认注意义务相对化不利于被害人权利的有效保障等问题，因此难以作为危险接受刑事归责的合理路径。社会相当性理论尽管在解决体育赛事等领域的危险接受案件具有一定优势，但由于其适用领域的局限性以及作为判断行为是否违法的标准明确性不足等缺陷，也难以成为应对危险接受的恰当方案。由于被害人危险接受与被害人同意具有诸多相似之处，所以运用被害人同意理论来解决危险接受案件得到了诸多论者的支持。但实际上同意危险并不意味着同意法益侵害结果、两者在主观态度方面存在的差异以及适用被害人同意理论解决危险接受具有局限性等问题，导致运用被害人同意理论来解决危险接受也并非完美契合。客观归责体系下的被害人自我答责理论一时间以来成为处理危险接受案件的主流路径，但被害人自我答责理论同样存在一些问题，诸如被害人自我答责理论本身模糊不清、全面适用于危险接受与自我答责理论的前提条件相违背、以及自我答责只是排除归责之结论而非根据。共犯从属性理论虽然为被害人危险接受案件的解决提供了一条新的解决思路，然而将危险接受中的被害人与行为人类比为共犯关系并不妥当、共犯论证模式忽视了被害人参与行为的考量、加之其在解决危险接受的范围方面存在一定限制等不足，实际上也难以成为解决被害人危险接受的理想路径。此外，团结义务原理也未能为被害人危险接受案件的刑事归责提供圆满方案，这是因为容忍义务不应适用于个人不同法益冲突场合，且人身安全总都比自由更为重要的命题难以成立等。由此可见，现有被害人危险接受解决路径或因理论本身的矛盾、或因与危险接受具有本质的差异以及忽视危险接受独特的内容结构等缺陷，都难以十分圆满地解决被害人危险接受中的刑事归责问题。

第三章被害人危险接受影响归责的根据之一，即被害人自我决定权。从当前的讨论来看，在被害人危险接受这一问题上，各种理论背后主要涉及到两种基本立场的争论，即被害人自我保护义务与被害人自我决定权。申言之，被害人基于对危险的认识而参与其中，究竟是被害人违背了自我保护的基本义务，亦或是被害人基于自由意思决定而实现了自我决定的权利。深入分析发现，被害人自我保护义务由于难以替代刑法的基本功能、边界本身较为模糊不清以及承认自我保护义务具有优先性与国家对公民的保护职责相悖等系列问题，实际上难以成为危险接受中影响刑事归责的正当化根据。而被害人自我决定权以自由为其法哲学根基，一般认为个人只要能够按照自己的意愿支配自由，便应属于自我决定权的行使。在危险接受场合，被害人是在自由意志支配下参与到危险之中，那么，理应属于被害人自我决定权行使的一种情形。尽管如此，在危险接受中仍不能根据被害人自我决定权直接排除行为人的不法性，这是因为被害人仅同意危险行为，而完整排除行为人不法的自我决定权还需彻底放弃法益。但考虑到行为人的参与行为某种程度上有利于被害人自我决定权实现，因此，原则上应当在被害人同意危险行为实施的限度内减轻行为人的不法性。

第四章被害人危险接受影响归责的根据之二，即危险支配。实际上，在被害人危险接受中，被害人自我决定权并非影响行为人刑事归责的唯一因素，在危险实现阶段，对归责走向产生实质影响的因素还应包括具体的危险支配行为。危险支配，意味着主体通过自己的意志或者行为对危险进行了掌控或者支配，法益侵害结果的发生与否以及以何种样态发生往往取决于对危险支配的客观情况。尽管通常认为支配是建立在故意基础上的，但实际上危险支配是一种脱离于故意理论，展现的是主体在事件过程中起到重要作用。而且，将危险支配作为危险接受中影响刑事归责的根据，不仅符合被害人危险接受的实质内涵，而且还有利于明确划定责任承担界域。除此以外，危险支配对于被害人危险接受的类型划分也具有十分重要的意义。虽然学界对危险接受应否划分为不同类型以及采取何种标准进行划分进行了一系列探讨，但目前并未取得共识。在被害人危险接受应当划分为不同类型进行处理的前提下，实际上采取危险支配的标准具有可行性与合理性。按照危险支配标准，即考察被害人对危险是否具有支配，可将危险接受划分为两种基本类型，“自己危险化的参与”与“合意型他者危险化”。据此，对于事实上共同支配危险的情形，便可以理所当然地将其归入到自己危险化的参与之中。就危险支配对被害人危险接受的刑事归责影响而言，原则上应当由具有对危险支配的主体为最终的法益侵害结果负责。

第五章为被害人危险接受刑事归责模式构建与实践应用。本章主要以前面重点探讨的两项影响归责根据为基础，构建了专属于被害人危险接受案件的刑事归责模式。根据被害人危险接受发展阶段的不同，两种要素分别发挥着不同的作用，在认识危险以及接受危险阶段，应当着重考察被害人是否基于自由意思决定而参与到具体危险之中，以及对接受危险是否真正体现了被害人的自我决定权。而在被害人参与到危险之中后直至法益侵害结果出现，此一阶段便需重点关注究竟是哪一方主体的行为真正支配了危险进而造成了法益侵害结果的发生。据此，在自己危险化的参与情形下以及双方共同支配危险的情形，由于被害人自愿陷入危险之中并且支配性地导致了自身法益受损，此时便相当于是被害人自身的一种自我危害行为，由此所造成的实害结果理应由被害人自行承担。而在合意型他者危险化案件中，尽管被害人同样基于自由意思决定参与到危险之中，但此时是行为人单独支配了危险进而导致了法益侵害结果，被害人在整个过程中仅是危险的参与者，最终的刑事责任应当由行为人承担，同时应当予以从宽处罚。应当说，以被害人自我决定权及危险支配为基础所构建的“双核处理模式”既体现了刑法对被害人自我决定权的尊重，同时也使得被害人危险接受案件的刑事归责更为合理。而且，此种归责处理模式也完全契合法秩序统一性的基本要求，同时也不会不利于社会互动。被害人危险接受刑事归责模式的实践适用，无疑有赖于危险接受中两大核心要素的具体判断。在对被害人自我决定权进行判断时，应当着重考察被害人是否基于自由或者自愿作出某种决定或者实施某种行为，常见的不符合被害人自我决定权的情形主要有，被害人负有特定身份情形下、行为人具有强势身份以及被害人法益处于威胁下；而对于危险支配的判断，应当坚持以客观行为认定为主，特殊情形下兼顾规范认定。

The victim participation crime is one of the important topics in the criminal law theory in recent years, and how to assign responsibility to the perpetrator in the victim's acceptance of risk is the important content of this topic.At present, our country's criminal law circle has not paid enough attention to the issue of the victim's acceptance of risk, involving many sub-contents under this issue has not formed a unanimous consensus, among which the most important question of imputation performed prominently.It is of theoretical significance and practical value to study the criminal imputation in the victim's acceptance of risk. The inclusion of the victim's participation in the research perspective is not only conducive to the in-depth development of the victim doctrine, but also conducive to the fair delineation of the victim's and the perpetrator's responsibility.In view of this, this article mainly examines and reconstructs the issue of the criminal liability of the perpetrator in the victim's acceptance of risk.

The first chapter summarizes the basic problems of the victim's acceptance of risk. First of all, the nature of "victim" and "danger" in the victim's acceptance of risk is defined. The victim must be the subject who is actually harmed by illegal acts and has certain assumptions. The "danger" in the acceptance of risk should be related to the actor, which has the possibility of infringing on the legal interests of the victim and its reality has a certain probability. The victim's acceptance of risk refers to the situation that the victim in negligent crime voluntarily carries out or participates in a certain behavior that he or she knows is likely to cause harm to himself or herself, thus leading to the realization of risk. There are some differences between the victim's acceptance of risk and the victim's fault and self-destructive behavior, which cannot be regarded as the same. In practice, the establishment of a qualified victim's acceptance of risk should meet three conditions, that is, the victim knows the risk, the victim accepts the risk and the risk is finally realized as the result of infringement of legal interests. At present, due to the lack of legislative provisions and the lack of consensus in theory, most of these cases are still solved from the traditional principle of negligent crime in judicial practice, ignoring the influence of the victim's voluntary participation on the offender's illegality, and similar cases are often not treated similarly.

The second chapter reviews the theory of criminal liability for the victim's acceptance of risk. In recent years, there have been certain discussion in academic circles about the victim's risk acceptance of criminal liability, and some solutions have also been formed. The theory of relativity of duty of care is difficult to be regarded as a reasonable way to accept criminal liability for danger because of the lack of sufficient explanation of excluding the duty of care of the actor, the difficulty of relativity because the victim accepts dangerous behavior, and the fact that the relativity of duty of care is not conducive to the effective protection of the victim's rights. Although the theory of social equivalence has certain advantages in solving the victim's acceptance of risk in sports events and other fields, it is difficult to become an appropriate solution to the risk acceptance because of its limitations in application fields and the lack of clarity as a criterion for judging whether the behavior is illegal or not. Because there are many similarities between the victim's acceptance of risk and the victim's consent, the application of the victim's consent theory to solve the victim's acceptance of risk case has been supported by many commentators. However, actually agreeing with risk does not mean agreeing with the result of infringement of legal interests, the differences between them in subjective attitudes and the limitations of applying victim consent theory to solve acceptance of risk , which leads to the application of victim consent theory to solve the victim's acceptance of risk is not perfect. The theory of victim's self-responsibility under the objective imputation system has become the mainstream way to deal with victim's acceptance of risk cases for a time, but there are also some problems in the theory of victim's self-responsibility, such as the ambiguity of the victim's self-responsibility theory itself, the violation of the preconditions for its comprehensive application to risk acceptance and the theory of victim's self-responsibility, and the fact that victim's self-responsibility is only a conclusion but not a basis for excluding imputation. The theory of accomplice's subordination provides a new way to solve the case of risk acceptance. However, in fact, it is not appropriate to compare the victim and the behavioral human being to the accomplice relationship, the accomplice demonstration model ignores the consideration of the victim's participation behavior, and there are some limitations in solving the scope of risk acceptance. In fact, it is difficult to become an ideal path to solve the problem of the victim's acceptance of risk. In addition, the principle of solidarity obligation has failed to provide a satisfactory solution for the criminal liability of the victim's dangerous acceptance case, because the obligation of tolerance should not be applied to situations where individuals have different legal interests, and it is difficult to establish the proposition that personal safety is always more important than freedom. It can be seen that the existing solutions to the victim's acceptance of risk are difficult to solve the problem of criminal liability in the victim's acceptance of risk very satisfactorily, either because of the contradiction of the theory itself, or because it is essentially different from the acceptance of risk and ignores the unique content structure of the acceptance of risk.

The third chapter is one of the bases for the imputation of the victim's acceptance of risk , that is, the victim's right of self-decision.Judging from the current discussion, on the issue of the victim's risk acceptance, there are two basic positions behind various theories, namely, the victim's self-protection obligation and the victim's right to self-decision. In a word, whether the victim violated the basic obligation of self-protection or realized the right of self-determination based on his free will. Through in-depth analysis, it is found that the victim's self-protection obligation is difficult to replace the basic function of criminal law, the boundary itself is vague, and the recognition of the priority of self-protection obligation is contrary to the state's duty to protect citizens, so it is difficult to become a legitimate basis for influencing criminal liability in the victim's acceptance of risk. The victim's right to self-determination is based on freedom, and it is generally believed that as long as an individual can control freedom according to his own wishes, it should belong to the exercise of self-determination on the occasion of accepting risk, the victim participates in risk under the control of free will, so it should belong to a situation in which the victim exercises his right to self-determination. Nevertheless, in the acceptance of risk, the wrongfulness of the actor cannot be directly ruled out according to the victim's right of self-determination, because the victim only agrees to the behavior of risk, and the legal interest needs to be completely abandoned to completely rule out the wrongfulness of the actor's right of self-determination. However, considering that the actor's participation is conducive to the realization of the victim's right to self-determination to some extent, in principle, the illegality of the actor should be reduced within the limits of the victim's consent to the implementation of dangerous acts.      

The fourth chapter is the second basis of the victim's risk acceptance influence, that is, domination of risk. In fact, in the victim's acceptance of risk, the victim's self-determination right is not the only factor that affects the perpetrator's criminal imputation. In the stage of realizing danger, the factors that have a substantial impact on the imputation trend should also include specific domination behavior of risk. Risk domination means that the subject controls or dominates the risk through his own will or behavior. Whether or not the result of legal interest infringement occurs and in what way often depends on the objective situation of risk domination. Although it is generally believed that domination is based on intention, in fact, the domination of risk is a theory divorced from intention, which shows that the subject plays an important role in the process of events. Moreover, taking risk domination as the basis of influencing criminal liability in dangerous acceptance is not only in line with the substantive connotation of dangerous acceptance, but also conducive to clearly defining the boundaries of liability. In addition, risk domination is also of great significance to the classification of victims' risk acceptance types. Although the academic circles have conducted a series of discussions on whether the acceptance of risk should be classified into different types and what criteria should be adopted for classification, there is no consensus at present. On the premise that the victim's acceptance of risk should be divided into different types, it is feasible and reasonable to adopt the standard of risk domination in fact. According to the standard of risk control, that is, whether the victim has control over the risk,the victim's acceptance of risk can be divided into two basic situations, "Self-risking participation" and "consensual other-risking". According to this, the situation of sharing danger in fact can be naturally classified as "Self-risking participation". As far as the influence of risk domination on the criminal liability of the victim's acceptance of risk is concerned, in principle, it should be responsible for the subject of risk domination and the final result of legal interest infringement.

The fifth chapter is the construction and practical application of criminal liability model for victim's acceptance of risk. In this chapter, based on the two influential imputation bases discussed above, a criminal imputation model is constructed, which belongs to the victim's dangerous acceptance case. According to the different stages of the victim's acceptance of danger, the two elements play different roles. In the stages of recognizing danger and accepting danger, we should focus on whether the victim participates in specific danger based on free will and whether the victim's right to self-determination is truly reflected in accepting danger. After the victim participates in the danger until the result of infringement of legal interests appears, it is necessary to focus on which subject's behavior really dominates the danger and then causes the result of infringement of legal interests. Accordingly, in the case of their own dangerous participation and the situation in which both parties jointly control the danger, because the victim voluntarily falls into danger and dominantly damages his own legal interests, it is equivalent to the victim's own self-harm behavior at this time, and the actual harmful results caused by it should be borne by the victim himself. However, in the case of the danger of the consensual other, although the victim also decided to participate in the danger based on his free will, it was the actor who dominated the danger alone at this time, which led to the infringement of legal interests. The victim was only a dangerous participant in the whole process, and the ultimate criminal responsibility should be borne by the actor and lenient punishment should be given at the same time. It should be said that the "dual-core processing mode" based on the victim's right to self-determination and danger domination not only embodies the respect of the victim's right to self-determination in criminal law, but also makes the criminal liability of the case of accepting danger more reasonable. Moreover, this imputation treatment mode fully meets the basic requirements of the unity of legal order, and it will not be detrimental to social interaction. The practical application of the criminal imputation mode of dangerous acceptance undoubtedly depends on the concrete judgment of the two core elements in dangerous acceptance. When judging the victim's right to self-determination, we should focus on whether the victim made a decision or carried out an act freely or voluntarily. The common situations that do not conform to the victim's right to self-determination mainly include: the victim has a specific identity, the actor has a strong identity and the victim's law benefits under threat; For the judgment of dangerous domination, we should insist on the identification of objective behavior, and give consideration to the identification of norms in special circumstances.