理论上一般认为,不作为的义务来源有三个:法律上的规定,职务或业务上的要求,当事人的先前行为。其中,如何界定当事人的先前行为, 当事人的先前行为与实际损害结果之间有无刑法上的因果关系等,一直是司法实践中较为棘手的问题。本期疑案精解讨论的案例中,追打他人致其溺亡该如何处理,就涉及以上问题。为此,河南省人民检察院邀请有关专家结合案例进行了深入探讨。 In theory, it is generally believed that there are three sources of obligations for inaction: legal provisions, job or business requirements, and prior party actions. Among them, how to define the prior behavior of the parties, whether there is any criminal law causal relationship between the previous behavior of the parties and the actual damage result has always been a thorny issue in judicial practice. In the current case of deliberation and discussion, the above problems are involved in how to deal with the drowning caused by others. To this end, Henan Provincial People’s Procuratorate invited experts to conduct in-depth discussions with the case.