《人民司法》今年第一期刊载了雨珏同志《对石罕应如何定罪》(以下简称雨文)的案例研究。在该文中,作者认为被告人石罕的行为已构成了间接故意杀人罪,应负刑事责任。对此,本人不敢苟同。 我们知道,一个人只能对其实施的并与已经发生的危害结果存有刑法上的因果关系的行为负刑事责任。在此案中,意外事件与死亡结果之间介入了石罕的一个“少顷”不作为,那么,查明究竟是前者(意外事件)还是后者 In the first issue of this year, People’s Justice published a case study of Comrade Yu Jue’s “How to Convict Shi Han” (hereinafter referred to as Yu Wen). In this article, the author considers that the defendant Shi Han’s act constituted indirect intentional homicide and should be criminally responsible. In this regard, I can not agree. We know that one person can only be held criminally responsible for the conduct of a criminal act that has been put into effect and has a causal link with the result that has already occurred. In this case, Ishihara intervened between the accident and the outcome of a “few” omissions, then find out whether the former (accident) or the latter