传统理论（法定符合说和具体符合说）将打击错误问题放在故意认定中讨论，这种体系定位值得商榷。打击错误问题可以从两个路径进行解释：故意认定路径和故意既遂犯的归责路径，两种路径采取的视角不同，但其都可以印证，打击错误的本质在于主客观要件合致性的判定。如果认为打击错误的本质在于主客观要件合致性的判定，那么传统具体符合说与法定符合说（还有行为计划理论、故意危险理论）都提供了合致性判定的标准，这些标准体现了不同的思路，但它们存在着共性的问题——其故意认定或故意归责是单一层次的。从法定符合说难以克服的理论困境——并发结果中的“一故意”与“数故意”分歧为切入点，可以分析得出打击错误解决方案的两大关键理论节点在于：①故意概念的选择及其内涵界定；②基于上述故意概念的合致性判定层次。在故意概念的选择上，本文提倡规范的故意概念。规范的故意概念认为故意是行为时点行为人对特定类型的法益侵害风险的认识与意欲，此概念包含如下要点内容：①行为人的主观故意存在于行为时且不可回溯消除；②具体的对象、因果流程均非故意的认识内容；③故意的本质在于对决定规范的违反从而体现其主观的可谴责性，因此，抽象的故意概念并不影响其本质；④故意认识内容的抽象程度应当以构成要件为基准。立足于规范的故意概念，本文主张将双层次的合致性判定作为打击错误的解决方案。合致性的第一层次判定为主客观要件各自的符合一致，这一层次包含了客观要件审查和主观要件审查，文章的论述重心在于主观要件的审查，认为故意是以构成要件为基准规范的故意，因此故意认定与故意归责在本文中的含义是不同的；合致性的第二层次判定为实际所发生结果的归责，这一层次的合致性判定在于实际发生结果能够归责给行为人，实际上是在第一层合致性认定基础上做出的负面排除性归责，如果偏离于意欲结果的实际结果能够归责给行为人，那么第一层次合致性判定的构成要件评价不被排除，故意既遂犯成立，反之则阻却故意既遂犯的成立。实际发生结果的归责应当采取主观归责路径，即故意归责，在归责标准上应当采取认识可能性标准。本文论证的双层次的合致性判定结合了具体符合说和法定符合说的优点：首先，构成要件标准契合了法评价的规范性，并且易于得出合理的结论；其次，具体符合说关于责任主义的追求可以通过主观归责的路径来完成；最后，双层次的合致性判定克服了传统理论的难题（并发结果和过剩结果问题）。

The traditional theory (statutory compliance and concrete compliance) will discuss the problem of attack error along with intention confirmation, which is doubtful. The problem of attack error can be explained from two paths: the path of intention confirmation and the path of imputation of intentional accomplished offenders. These two paths have different perspectives, but both of them confirm that the essence of attack error lies in the judgment of consistency between the subjective and objective elements.If the essence of attack error lies in the judgment of the consistency of the subjective and objective elements, the statutory compliance theory and concrete compliance theory (also the behavioral plan theory and the intentional risk theory) provide the criteria for the judgement of the consistency of the subjective and objective elements. These criteria reflect different ideas, but there is a common problem among them - their intention confirmation or intention imputation is a single level. From the theoretical predicament that the statutory compliance theory can hardly overcome -- the disagreement between "one intention" or "several intention" in the concurrency result, we can conclude that the two key theoretical nodes of the attack error solution are as follows: Firstly, the choice of intention concept and its definition; Secondly, the levels of judgement based on the intention concept above.In the choice of intention concept, this article advocates the normative intention concept. The normative intention concept assumes that intention is the cognition and desire of risk of infringement concerning a specific type of legal interest. The main points of this concept include the following: (1) the subjective intention of the actor coexists with the behavior and cannot be traced back; (2) the specific object and the causality process are not cognition factors of criminal intent, the essence of the criminal intention lies in the condemnation of the violation of the standards, thus the abstract intention concept does not affect its essence; (4) the degree of abstraction of intention should be based on the constitutive requirements.Based on the normative intention concept, this article advocates the two level judgment of consistency as the solution to the problem of attack error. The first level of consistency is that the subjective and objective elements are consistent with each other. This level includes the examination of the objective elements and the examination of the subjective elements. The emphasis of this article is the examination in the subjective elements, and the intention is judged by the constitutive requirements. Therefore, intention confirmation and intention imputation are different in this article. The second level of consistency is the imputation of the actual result. The judgement of consistency is that the actual result can be attributed to the actor. In fact, it is a negative exclusionary attribution on the basis of the first level of consistency. If the actual result which is deviated from the desired result can be attributed to the intention of the actor, the evaluation of the first level of consistency will not be excluded, thus a crime committed. Otherwise it will obstruct the establishment of an accomplished offense. The attribution of an actual result should take a subjective path of imputation, namely, intention imputation, and the standard of cognition possibility should be regarded as the imputation standard. The two-level judgment of consistency illustrated in this article combines the advantages of statutory compliance and concrete compliance: Firstly, The standard of constitutive requirements coincides with the normative evaluation of law, and is easy to draw reasonable conclusions; Secondly, the pursuit of the principle of responsibility can be completed through the path of subjective imputation; Finally, the two-level judgment of consistency overcomes the dilemma of traditional theory (in the situations of concurrence or excess result).