在快播案被告人實施的兩類行為中,提供播放器的行為只是違反了監管義務,有成立不作為的可能性;緩存行為則積極地支配了犯罪進程,屬于作為。對于作為犯,應當從存在論的角度考慮行為人對結果發生的原因及犯罪進程的支配;對于不作為,應當從義務違反的角度進行論證。快播案判決在定罪結論上完全合理,但全案以不作為犯為論證立足點,就播放器提供行為一節的法益侵害后果而言,缺乏證據支撐;將刑法外的義務作為保證人義務也存在疑問,判決理由的敘述方式給人以將《刑法修正案(九)》拒不履行網絡安全監管義務罪的規定溯及既往之感。在被告人存在足以被評價為作為的緩存淫穢物品的傳播行為時,法院判決沒有對其充分加以論證,而將全案以不作為進行包括性評價,未必是論證判決理由的最佳方案。定罪的合理論證思路似乎應當主要針對被告人的緩存這一陳列淫穢物品行為,從作為犯的角度切入,分析行為的支配性和正犯性,將緩存行為評價為以存放、陳列方式實施的傳播行為,從而將定罪的關鍵事實定位于存在論上難以否認的作為,使得定罪正當性得以充分展示。

In the two conducts committed by the defendants in the QVOD case,the conduct of providing player is merely a violation of supervisory duty,which is possible to be convicted as an omission.But the conduct of providing cache service controls the course of the crime and therefore should be convicted as an act.In terms of the crime of act,the perpetrator’s causation with the occurrence of the result and his control over the crime should be assessed from the perspective of ontology.In terms of the crime of omission,it should be assessed from the perspective of the violation of duty.The conviction of defendants in the QVOD case is completely justified,but the standpoint of omission in the judgement is questionable.First,as far as the harm result of providing player,there is no sufficient evidence.Second,treating the duty outside the criminal law as the duty to act in criminal law gives the impression that the crime of refusing to fulfill the obligation of network security supervision established by the Ninth Amendment of Criminal Law can be retrospectively applied to the QVOD case.The rationale of the judgement does not necessarily provide the best solution when the court did not provide sufficient reasoning for the conduct of spreading by providing cache service for obscene articles which can be convicted as an act,whereas it justified the whole case from the perspective of omission.A more reasonable approach of conviction may be sought from the act of exhibiting obscene articles by providing cache service from the perspective of omission.The defendant’s conduct should be analyzed from the perspective of the nature of control and perpetrator,by which the conduct of providing cache service should be assessed from the conduct of spreading by storing and exhibiting obscene articles.Therefore,the key facts of conviction should concentrate on the undeniable act rather omission in the ontology,through which the justification of the conviction can be fully established.