對於共同正犯共同犯罪所得之沒收、追徵方法，我國實務向採連帶說。對此，學說上基於責任原則的考量殆採否定見解。而本文經由沒收、追徵之性質、比較法的觀點及責任原則的考察後，認為該項問題係受不允許犯罪行為人保有不正利益的要求及應符合量刑的責任原則等因素之羈束。因此，雖然法院依據必要的追徵規定，對於應否追徵無酌量之餘地，但仍應就犯罪行為人實際分配之數額為之，惟若無法判斷實際分配數額時，則法院應對追徵方法為合理的裁量，始符量刑的責任原則。

In our country, assets forfeiture and substitute assets forfeiture to the gains derived from offense by co-principals, each defendant is jointly and severally liable to the forfeiture,,. However, the academic community generally takes the viewpoint of negation theory to the practical operation of forfeiture based on obligation principles. After integrating the natures of forfeiture and substitute assets forfeiture, the viewpoints of comparative jurisprudence and the obligation principles, the author believes the issue is under the constraint of not allowing the offenders' being permitted to preserve illegal benefits and the obligation principles to measurement of penalty. Therefore, though courts have to comply with the substitute assets forfeiture regulations of law and have no authority to consider whether to apply it or not, they still have the authority to burden the amount of substitute assets forfeiture to the individual offender according to real benefits gained. If it could not be clearly identified, courts should make a reasonable judgment to the substitute assets forfeiture of the co-principals for complying with obligation principles in measuring penalty.