按照我国传统的共犯理论，共犯从属于正犯。在刑法和司法解释中出现了将帮助行为直接作为正犯予以处罚的规定。学界对于帮助行为正犯化的正当性作过讨论，但无论是在刑法理论的协调上还是在司法实践的需要上，都有很多争议。焦点之一是片面帮助行为的定罪和处罚问题，本文试图以片面帮助犯正犯化为视角，对这一立法方式进行探究。本文包括四章：

       第一章讨论片面帮助行为正犯化的理论前提，因为只有在区分制犯罪参与体系之下才有正犯与共犯的区分。单一制参与体系在具体的适用上的确具有独特的亮点。区分制参与体系对参与类型进行区分，关注到了参与人行为方式的差异性。 在比较两种参与体系之后，本文认为，从实然的角度来看，我国在这一问题上的立场是不明确的，所以才引发众多争议。从应然的角度来看，将我国共同犯罪的规定向区分制改造是合理的。

       第二章主要以片面帮助犯为视角，概述了德国、日本、我国刑法学界的理论争议。在比较了关于共犯的本质的各种学说后，本文认为行为共同说的理解更为 准确。因为在区分制参与体系之下，该说能够保持逻辑上的一贯性。并且在定罪和归责上更为合理。然后本文针对我国现行刑法和司法解释对于片面帮助行为的处理进行了梳理，着重对片面帮助行为正犯化这种解决方法进行归纳总结。

       第三章考察学界对片面帮助行为正犯化这一立法模式的态度，存在肯定与否 定的观点分歧。本文认为，区分制之下实质客观说产生的必然趋势就是帮助行为正犯化，所以在理论基础上本身就存在逻辑上的悖论，而且在司法适用过程中，不仅所定罪名产生矛盾，量刑也不能做到均衡，对于帮助行为正犯化应当持否定 态度。

       第四章提出了片面帮助行为正犯化的替代选择，本文认为这种立法方式没有合理性，也无存在的必要性，因为通过改造我国传统共犯理论，完全可以解决片面帮助犯的定罪处罚。在定罪上，正犯不构成犯罪时，采用最小从属性说，帮助者可以成立帮助犯；在量刑上，帮助犯不一定是从犯，根据区分制犯罪参与体系理论，它也有可能是主犯，应按照其在共同犯罪中所起的作用进行处罚。

According to China's traditional accomplice theory, accomplices are subordinate to the principal offender. Provisions have been made in criminal law and judicial interpretation to directly punish aiding acts as principal offenders. The academic circles have discussed the legitimacy of helping the criminalization of behavior, but there are many disputes both in the criminal law principles coordination and the judicial practice needs. One of the focuses is the problem of conviction and punishment of one-sided help behavior. This article attempts to explore this legislative method from the perspective of one-sided help offender. This article includes four chapters:

      The first chapter discusses the theoretical premise of one-sided help behavior being criminalized, because the distinction between principal and accomplices can only be made under the differentiated criminal participation system. The one-participation system does have unique advantages. The differentiated participation system distinguishes the types of participation and pays attention to the differences in the behavior of participants. After comparing the two types of participation systems, this article argues that from a practical perspective, China's position on this issue is ambiguous, which has led to many controversies. From a proper point of view, it is reasonable to transform our country's joint crimes regulations into a differentiated system.

       The second chapter, from the view of one-sided helpers, outlines the theoretical disputes in the criminal law circles in Germany, Japan, and China. After comparing the various theories on the nature of accomplices, this article believes that the understanding of the common theory of behavior is more accurate. Because under the differentiated participation system, the argument can be logically consistent. And more reasonable in conviction and imputation. Then this article reviews the treatment of one-sided help behaviors in accordance with the positive criminal law and trial explanation of our country, and summarizes the solution of one-sided help behaviors' offense.

        The third chapter examines the attitude of the academic circles to the legislative model of one-sided help behavior being criminalized. There are differences of opinion between positive and negative. This article believes that the inevitable trend of the substantive and objective theory under the distinction system is to help the behavior be criminalized, so there is a logical paradox on the theoretical basis, and in the process of judicial application, not only the convictions are contradictory, but the sentencing cannot be to achieve equilibrium, we should take a negative attitude towards helping the behavior be criminalized.

        The fourth chapter proposes an alternative option of one-sided help offense. This article considers that this legislative method has no rationality and no necessity, because by reforming China's traditional accomplice theory, the conviction and punishment of one-sided help can be completely solved. On the conviction, when the principal offender does not constitute a crime, the helper can set up a helper. In terms of sentencing, the helper is not necessarily an accomplice. On the basis of the differentiated crime participation system theory, it may also be the principal offender. Its role in joint crimes is punished.