间接正犯概念在刑法理论以及司法实践中均具有存在的必要性。犯罪事实支配理论是区分正犯与共犯的指导原理。间接正犯的正犯性学说可以分为以幕后操纵者为视角的学说和以实际执行者为视角的学说。两类学说并非对立关系，而是正面与反面的关系；各种具体学说之间亦非对立关系，而是存在共通性。幕后操纵者是否成立间接正犯，既要从其自身的视角进行判断，也要从实际执行者的视角进行判断。间接正犯的判断应当分为两个层次。第一层是形式判断：我国《刑法》并不存在间接正犯的明文规定，所以，并不是“间接正犯当然符合构成要件”，而是“只有符合构成要件才可能成立间接正犯”。基于罪刑法定原则，必须进行构成要件符合性的形式判断。具体判断标准是，将幕后操纵者与实际执行者实现的构成要件事实结合起来，像单独犯那样进行构成要件符合性判断，只有在能够充足某罪的构成要件时，幕后操纵者才可能成立间接正犯。第二层是实质判断：在利用强制手段的场合，原则上幕后操纵者施加的强制力必须达到足以使实际执行者的行为成立阻却违法性的紧急避险或者欠缺期待可能性的程度；在利用认知优势的场合，原则上幕后操纵者必须使实际执行者的行为现实性地成为犯罪行为，并对朝着以构成要件结果为目标的实际执行者行为具有统制力，而且这种认知优势必须与构成要件事实的本质部分有关。间接正犯的成立范围分为三类：第一类是实际执行者欠缺构成要件该当性的情形。实际执行者欠缺身份要素并不影响幕后操纵者的正犯性判断；幕后操纵者利用实际执行者自伤、自损行为时，实际执行者不必满足对象要素。第二类是实际执行者欠缺违法性的情形。支配的标准在于，幕后操纵者按照自己的预设，实际控制了实际执行者正当防卫、紧急避险、职务行为的方向，引起了自己希望或者放任的法益侵害结果。第三类是实际执行者欠缺责任的情形。实际执行者欠缺故意与过失，幕后操纵者成立间接正犯；实际执行者存在过失，幕后操纵者成立间接正犯；实际执行者欠缺幕后操纵者的故意，幕后操纵者成立间接正犯；实际执行者欠缺加重构成的故意，幕后操纵者一般成立间接正犯；实际执行者欠缺特定目的，幕后操纵者成立间接正犯；实际执行者欠缺刑事责任能力，根据具体案情，幕后操纵者可能成立共犯也可能成立间接正犯；实际执行者欠缺违法性认识或者实际执行者欠缺期待可能性，幕后操纵者一般成立间接正犯。

The concept of indirect perpetrator has its necessity to exist in both criminal theory and judicial practice. The theory of dominance of criminal facts plays the role of guideline for distinguishing the perpetrator and accomplice. The theories of the perpatratorship of the indirect perpetrator can be divided into two types: one from the perspective of the manipulator in the behind and one from the perspective of the virtual executor. Those two types of theory are not conflicted with each other, instead, they are in the relationship between front and back. The specific theories do not conflict with each other either, on the contrary, they share something in common. To determine whether the manipulator constitutes indirect perpetrator, it is necessary to make judgment from both the perspective of the manipulator in the behind and the perspective of the virtual executor.The process to determine the indirect perpetrator should be two steps. The first step is formal judgment. Since the indirect perpetrator is not expressly stipulated in our Penal Code, it is not that “the indirect perpetrator complies with constitutive requirements naturally”, but “only those who complies with constitutive requirements can constitutes indirect perpetrator”. Based on the principle of legality, it is demand that the formal judgment of the compliance with the constitutive requirements be made. The specific standard is as follows. By combining the constituent facts of the manipulator in the behind and that of the virtual executor and making the judgment of whether the compliance with constitutive requirements is satisfied just as the case with one offender, only when the constitutive requirements of a specific crime are met, can the manipulator in the behind constitutes indirect perpetrator. The second step is substantial judgment. In the situation of coercion, it is necessary in principle that the level of coercion applied by the manipulator in the behind must be the same as that in the necessity as elimination of illegality or that in the lack of possibility of expectation. In the situation of advantage in cognition, it is necessary in principle that the manipulator in the behind must make the acts of the virtual executor become criminal acts factually, and maintain the control over the acts towards the constituent result of the virtual executor, and what’s more, the advantage in cognition must be related to the essential part of the constituent facts.The scope of the constitution of indirect perpetrator can be divided into three types. The first type is when the virtual executor lacks the compliance with constitutive requirements. It does not influence the judgment of perpetratorship of the manipulator in the behind that the virtual executor lacks the element of status. When the manipulator takes advantage of the acts of self-damage or self-harm of the virtual executor, it is not necessary for the executor to satisfy the element of object. The second type is when the virtual executor lacks illegality. The standard of dominance is as follows. The manipulator, in accord with his plan, controls the direction of the defense, necessity, or duty conduct of the executor, and causes the result of infringement upon legal interests which he pursues. The third type is when the virtual executor lacks culpability. When the executor lacks intention or negligence, the manipulator constitutes indirect perpetrator; when the executor has negligence, the manipulator constitutes indirect perpetrator; when the executor lacks the intention which the manipulator has, the manipulator constitutes indirect perpetrator; when the executor lacks the aggravated intention, the manipulator constitutes indirect perpetrator in general; when the executor lacks the capacity of criminal responsibility, according to the specific situation of the cases, the manipulator may constitutes accomplice or the indirect perpetrator; when the executor lacks cognition of illegality or possibility of expectation,, the manipulator constitutes indirect perpetrator in general.