本文对于各种正犯的理论进行了梳理，并且着重对现今德国刑法理论中的通说（犯罪事实支配理论）进行了详细的介绍。在此基础上，本文对于犯罪事实支配理论在我国的适用进行了比较分析，一方面得出了一些界定正犯的基本原则，一方面也提出了一些有待进一步研究的问题。 本文认为，正犯就是在实质的意义上实现构成要件之人。 首先，在支配犯中，存在三种正犯的类型：直接正犯、间接正犯与共同正犯。直接正犯即自己亲自实施犯罪行为的行为人，其通过行为的支配从而支配整个犯罪事实。原则上，亲自实施符合构成要件之犯罪行为的人，都对犯罪事实具有行为的支配，成立直接正犯。间接正犯是通过他人实施犯罪行为的行为人，其通过强制性支配、错误性支配以及组织性支配等三种类型的意思支配而支配整个犯罪事实。在强制性支配的场合下适用责任承担原则进行判断：如果幕后者的强制使得实施者的行为符合了刑法第16条、第20条或第21条等条文的规定，从而使得实施者免除了刑事责任的话，则幕后者成为间接正犯。在错误性支配的场合下，当实施者的错误所涉及的事实在与法益相关联的法律规范的意义上超出了实施者的主观故意所涵括的范围、或者足以降低实施者之障碍程度时，则应当将创设或利用这种错误的幕后者认定为间接正犯。在组织性支配的场合下，幕后者利用具有法规范脱离性的犯罪组织，凭借实施犯罪之组织成员的可替换性达成对犯罪事实的支配。共同正犯即与多人共同实施犯罪的行为人，其通过功能性支配从而支配整个犯罪事实。只有在行为人之间存有共同的犯罪故意或犯罪计划，于犯罪实行阶段共同参与实施，且行为人对于实现犯罪结果具有实质性的重大贡献时，乃得认定共同正犯之成立。 其次，在真正身份犯等义务犯之中，只有具有特殊身份、负担构成要件所要求之特殊义务的行为人才能成为正犯。而不具有特殊身份的行为人则并不负担构成要件所要求的特殊义务、不可能符合相关刑法条文所规定的构成要件，从而，其始终不能成为真正身份犯等义务犯中的正犯。 最后，在亲手犯中，只有亲自实施了犯罪行为的人才能成为正犯。

The problem of the definition of perpetrator, which is now under dispute not only in theory but also in legal practice, is one of the fundamental problems in criminal theory. This article enumerated the theories of the definition of perpetrator, and especially introduced the Hegemony theory, which is now the predominate theory in Germany. Based on this, the article analyzed the possibility of the application of this theory in China and inferred some principles of the definition of perpetrator on the one hand, and raised some problems that in the further ought to be researched on the other hand. This article argued that, perpetrator is a criminal that committed the crimes by material meaning. Firstly, in the range of predominate crimes, it exits three kinds of perpetrators: direct perpetrator, indirect perpetrator and joint perpetrators. Direct perpetrator is a criminal who committed the crime by himself, he predominated the situations of the crime by means of behavior. In principle, the criminals who committed the crimes by himself, always predominate the situations of crimes and are always direct perpetrators. Indirect perpetrator is a criminal that committed the crime by using another person. He can predominate the situations of the crime by means of force, error or domination of a criminal group. The forcible predomination means that, the wirepuller compelled another person to commit a crime. Here is the principle of responsibility effective: if the other person, due to the constrain of wirepuller, according to the Article 16 , 20 or 21 is ir- responsibility, then the wirepuller is indirect perpetrator. The predomination of error means that, the wirepuller induced another person to commit a crime by using his error. When the truth goes beyond the intent of the other person, or the degree of the resistance to violating the law, descends due to the error, then the wirepuller is an indirect perpetrator too. The predomination of the domination of a criminal group means that, the wirepuller predominates the situations of crimes by dominating a criminal group, in which the members that commit crimes are exchangeable. Joint perpetrators, that predominates the situation of a crime by functional predomination, is a criminal that commits a crime with many other persons. When have a common plan or common intent to commit a crime, and take part in the actualization of the crime and make a great contribution to the actualization of the crime, then these criminals are joint perpetrators. Secondly, in the range of obligation crimes, for example identity crimes and so on, only the criminals with special identity or special obligation can be defined as perpetrator. Lastly, in the range of self-crimes, only the criminal that commits the crime by himself can be defined as perpetrator.