以结果预见义务为中心的旧过失论存在着主观归责、扩大处罚范围的弊端，对过失实行行为也没有具体的规定。日本过失犯理论中的新过失论和修正的旧过失论开始注重过失实行行为的研究，将其定义为“构成了对法益侵害的紧迫性的行为”和“制造了实质上不允许的危险的行为”，对过失实行行为做出了实质的解释，也使得对过失犯的判断重心由主观层面转向了客观层面。德国的客观归责理论通过“制造了法不容许的风险”并辅之以一系列的下位规则对过失实行行为做出了实质的，具体的界定。以“注意义务违反说”为核心的传统范式过失论在对过失实行行为的界定上存在着诸多缺陷，也没有像“制造法不容许的风险说”的客观归责理论那样，对过失实行行为有一个具体完善的判断标准。在许多案件中，客观归责理论突出了过失实行行为的独立价值，在行为不法层面上即可判断行为人的行为可否归责，能够更合理地解决过失犯罪的问题。借鉴客观归责理论，可将过失实行行为定义为“制造并实现了法不容许的风险”。

Old negligent theory taking the results predicted obligations as core has defects like subjective imputation and expanding the scope of punishment, without specific regulations on criminal behavior with negligence. New negligent theory and modified old negligence theory in Japanese negligent theories starts to focus on the study of criminal behavior with negligence, defining respectively as “behavior of infringing legal interest” and “creating risks not allowed by law”. They give an essential interpretation to criminal behavior with negligence and make the judge core transforming from subjective aspect to objective aspect. German objective imputation theory give essential and specific definition to criminal behavior with negligence through “creating risks not allowed by law” and its series of rules. Traditional negligent theories taking “violation of attentive obligation theory” as core have many defects on judging criminal behavior with negligence while “theory of creating risks not allowed by law” has an specific and perfect judgment standard. In many cases, objective imputation theory protruding the unique value of criminal behavior with negligence and could make judgment whether the behavior be punished or not on the aspect of behavior imputation. It can solve the problem of negligent crime more reasonably. Refer to objective imputation theory, we could define criminal behavior with negligence as “creating and realizing risks not allowed by law”.