行为人与被害人之间原本没有法定的救助义务,当被害人的生命陷入困境,行为人开始采取了积极的救助措施,但是后来又因为各种原因中断了拯救行为,是否成立故意杀人罪?我认为应该依据导致法益侵害的行为是什么,法律谴责的重点在哪里,来判断行为是作为还是不作为。 There was no statutory bailout obligation between the perpetrator and the victim. When the victim’s life was in a dilemma and the perpetrator started taking positive remedial measures, he later for various reasons interrupted the act of salvation, did he establish intentional homicide? I think It should be based on what led to the legal interests of the infringement is what the focus of legal condemnation to determine whether acts of behavior or not.