大型火灾事故中故意犯背后的过失参与者结果归责问题引发了理论探讨,经历了条件说限定之不能、扩张正犯概念及惹起说的体系难题以及二元正犯概念的困境之后,成为过失犯应采取何种正犯概念的问题。在过失犯统一的正犯概念与限制的正犯概念的对立中,应采取限制的正犯概念,以不同的行为规范为区分过失正犯与共犯的标准,并以是否具备自我答责性之下的因果经过支配可能性来具体判断过失犯的正犯性。而不具有正犯性的过失共犯则不具备刑法上的可罚性。 Large-scale fire accident intentional guilty of behind the negligence of the consequences of the participants led to the study of the theory, experienced conditions that can not be defined, the expansion of the concept of the principal offender and the system caused by the puzzle and the plight of the concept of binary bourgeoisie, a guilty consonance What is the concept of being guilty? In the confrontation of the concept of the principal offender with a uniform guilty conscience of a guilty plea and a limitation, the concept of a guilty principal of confinement should be adopted, and different codes of conduct should be used to distinguish the standard of negligent guilty conscientious accomplity and whether the guilty conscientious pass Dominate the possibility to determine the specific culpability offenders. The non-culprit accomplices that do not have positive offenses do not possess the criminal penalties.