對向參與行為的可罰性問題,存在立法者意思說、實質說和并用說的學說分歧。并用說在根據共犯原理探討對向參與行為實質可罰性的基礎上,結合違法程度、法益均衡、比例原則等要求,限定對向參與行為的處罰范圍,是較可取的立場。并用說不僅可以為對向犯個罪的限縮解釋提供實質依據,而且可以類型化地審視對向參與行為的可罰范圍,即對于片面對向犯,如果是具有行為擴散性的離心犯,可依據被害參與原理和共犯從屬性特征,排除其必要之對向參與行為的可罰性;而對于非擴散性的向心犯,其對向參與行為,除屬于被害參與類型,抑或參照刑法相關規定,基于比例原則和體系解釋予以排除以外,只要該當教唆或幫助行為,就應當以共犯論處。

There are three different doctrinal standards to solve the problem of "the scope of punishment to the behavior of encountering offenses" : "standard of legislator’s original meaning", "standard of substantive interpretation" and "standard of both legislator’s original meaning and substantive interpretation".The last standard is the most appropriate solution to this problem.With this standard,we can not only make a restrictive interpretation of the specific offense(e.g.the crime of illegal trading ID),but also determine the scope of punishment to participation behavior in one-sided encountering offenses.We need to distinguish between centrifugal offense and centripetal offense,and then according to their different characteristics,use the standard of both legislator’s original meaning and substantive interpretation to analyze whether the participants’ behaviors are punishable or not.