“风险”与“安全”是一个二项式，对风险的反感和对于安全的需求，使得国民不断地要求国家对风险进行预防并提供安全保障。为此，现代刑法主要采用两个新手段：一是扩张保护集体法益，实行法益保护的早期化；二是抽象危险犯成了刑事立法首选的犯罪类型，实行刑事处罚的前置化。采用抽象危险犯来保护集体法益符合社会的需要，具有刑事政策上的理由，也具有有效性。但集体法益是对于个人法益的提前保护，抽象危险犯又是对于集体法益的前置保护，一旦集体法益和抽象危险犯这两个概念结合在一起，就很容易导致对某些行为实行不正当的犯罪化。因此，现代刑法既要承认抽象危险犯是刑事处罚前置化的犯罪类型，也要为抽象危险犯的前置处罚划定合理的界限。抽象危险犯的违法性根据是法益侵害，而不是行为方式本身即具有刑事可罚性。抽象危险犯的违法性判断基准是结果无价值，行为具有对法益造成抽象危险的性质，并且在具体案件中对于法益产生了客观的违法，这两个层次的不法相结合才能确立抽象危险犯的违法性判断基准。抽象危险犯既可以保护个人法益，也可以保护集体法益，集体法益具有独立于个人法益的性质和地位。刑法上的结果概念既可以指构成要件结果，也可以指违法结果。只要行为引起或者造成了法益侵害，不管这种侵害是物质性的还是非物质性的，都可以被评价为结果。因此，危险行为、抽象危险以及相应的因果关系都是抽象危险犯的构成要素。刑法首先是裁判规范、其次才是行为规范，因此，司法上只要具有正当的、足够充分的理由，就可以在具体个案中否定立法上关于危险的预判。对于抽象危险犯的认定而言，只要行为人实施的类型化的危险行为引起了无法控制的危险状态，这种不可控制的危险状态就是抽象危险。对于抽象危险犯的研究而言，从刑事立法上就合理地限制国家权力对公民自由的过分干预，划清犯罪化与非犯罪化的界限，促成抽象危险犯领域的理性的立法，是最重要的、也是最核心的问题。抽象危险犯的立法目的是为了更周延地保护法益，但个人法益与集体法益之间有时会出现哪个优先的问题，此时就需要立法者在扩张刑事可罚性的同时，在“自由”和“安全”之间，作出选择或者进行平衡。刑事立法在抽象危险犯的犯罪化上必须实现两点平衡：一是要对法益实现最大限度地保护；二是要对公民权利实行最小程度地限制。这二者看似矛盾，却缺一不可。

“Risk” and “Security” are two termed expressions. The averse to risk and the requirement for security make people request the state to prevent risk as well as to provide security guarantee.Therefore, modern criminal law mainly adopts two instruments to achieve these goals: Firstly, expanding to protect the collective legal interests so that the criminal law can protect legal interests at an earlier stage. Secondly, to use the abstract endangerment offense as the main type for criminalization so that criminal law can trigger criminal punishment at an earlier stage. There are policy reasons and practice effects for the legislator to adopt abstract endangerment offenses to protect collective legal interests. However, collective legal interests are the protection of the individual legal interests at the earlier stage; abstract endangerment offenses are the protection of collective legal interest at the earlier stage. Once the legislator uses collective legal interests and abstract endangerment offenses together to criminalize certain conduct, it is very easy to result in illegitimate criminalization. Therefore, modern criminal law shall recognize the criminalization of abstract endangerment offenses on the one hand, while shall set reasonable limits for such criminalization at the earlier stage on the other hand. The legitimate basis for the illegality of abstract endangerment offenses shall be the harm to legal interests but not the misconduct itself. The determination base for the illegality of abstract endangerment offenses shall be the theory of anti-value consequence. The conduct is going to cause abstract danger to legal interests in nature, and such conduct has produced actual danger to legal interests in actual case, these two levels’ illegality combines, thus the determination base for the illegality of abstract endangerment offenses can be built. The abstract endangerment offenses can be used to protect the invidual legal interests as well as the colletive legal interests. Collective legal interests are independent of the individual legal interests in nature as well as in status. The concept of consequence in criminal law can be used to refer to constructive consequence as well as illegal consequence. Under the condition that conduct produces or causes harm to legal interests, no matter such harm is material or not material, it can be considered as consequence. Therefore, conduct, abstract danger and the connection between conduct and consequence are all constructive elements of abstract endangerment offenses.Criminal law rules are firstly judgement rules and secondly forbidden rules, therefore, when judges have justifiable and sufficient reasons, they can deny the pre-determinination of legislators regarding the establishment of abstract endangerment in concrete cases. For the determination of abstract endangerment offenses, only if the conduct of the defendant produces endangerment circumstance which is out of control, this un-controlled endangerment circumstance is abstract endangerment. For the study of abstract endangerment offenses, the most important as well as the most centred issue is to limit the criminal law legislation into a reasonable line, avoiding the state to intrude the individual’s freedom without due reason, outlining the boundary between the crime and non-crime and promoting the reasonable legislation regarding abstract endangerment offenses. The aim of the legislation of abstract endangerment offenses is to protect legal interests at an earlier stage, however, there might be conflicts regarding which is a priority to protect, the individual’s legal interests or collective legal interests? Thus the legislators need to balance between “freedom” and “security” while expand the criminal punishment scope.