狸貉案件中存在两个核心问题,一是捕获行为的结束时间,二是行为人的认识错误是何种类型。本案行为人主观上存在对猎物的支配意思,客观上制造了人工的设施对猎物形成控制,这种控制在社会观念上也是被承认的,所以,应当认为行为人在将猎物封堵在洞穴之中时,捕获行为就已经结束。狩猎法所规定的猎物概念是规范的构成要件要素,按照行为人所属外行人领域的平行评价理论,本案的行为人并未意识到自己所捕获的是构成要件所规定的猎物,因而不具备故意,而“姆马·鼯鼠案件”中的行为人准确地认识到了构成要件的内容,存在故意,只是欠缺违法性认识。狸狢案件表明,刑法具有可执行性的前提是其本身首先必须具备明确性。 There are two core issues in the raccoon dog case, one is the end time of the capture behavior, and the other is the type of cognitive misunderstood behavior. In this case, the perpetrator subjectively possessed the prerogative to prey, and objectively created man-made facilities to control the prey. Such control was also recognized in the social conception. Therefore, it should be considered that the perpetrator blocked the prey in the cave In the middle, the capture has ended. According to the theory of parallel evaluation in the area of ​​laymen’s field, the perpetrator in this case did not realize that he captured the prey which is the component of the constitution and did not knowingly , While the actors in the case of Muma Zergling accurately recognize the content of the constitutional requirements and exist intentionally but only lack the understanding of illegality. The case of raccoon shows that the precondition for the enforceability of the criminal law is that it must first of all have its own certainty.