准确区分主犯和从犯，妥当确定从犯的范围，对于适当量刑至关重要。《刑法》第27条在共同犯罪中起次要作用的从犯是我国刑法中的独特规定，但对于这一共犯人类型，实务上通常不予认可，持“不能区分”主从犯、“不宜区分”主从犯或“不应区分”主从犯的立场。理论上，有人认为《刑法》第27条起次要作用的人的规定是多余的，有的学者即便认可这一规定，对其指涉的内容也有争议。上述实务做法或理论主张均值得商榷，对起次要作用的人的认定，应坚持规范的、实质的思考：在区分正犯与共犯时，应以犯罪支配说实质地进行判断，在后续的主从犯的作用判断中，是在分工分类的基础上进一步细分作用大小。在共同犯罪中支配犯罪进程的未必都是起主要作用的人。对起次要作用的人的判断是存在论和规范论相结合的判断，其判断以涉及责任刑的事实为审查重点：由于共同犯罪是违法事实，在“共同犯罪中”意味着认定起次要作用的人只能以本次犯罪的违法事实为基础。至于属于预防刑的事实，不能将其作为判断依据。实践中仅以前科作为认定主犯的依据的做法值得商榷。从类型分析的角度看，《刑法》第27条起次要作用的人与正犯之间可能有交叉关系。起次要作用的人包括起次要作用的（共同）正犯、部分胁从犯、大多数共谋共同正犯、绝大多数教唆犯。帮助犯是在共同犯罪中起辅助作用的人，其与起次要作用的人之间是排斥关系。

To correctly tell the prime culprit apart from the accessory and properly identify the scope of the accessory is of critical importance to appropriate sentencing. The accessory is defined by Article 27 of The Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China as a secondary role in a joint crime. This is a unique speculation of China’s criminal law. Nevertheless, accomplice of this type is usually not recognized in practice, for many hold that the prime culprit and the accessory are not distinguishable or not feasible for distinguishing or should not be distinguished. Theoretically, some believe that the specification of Article 27 of The Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China on the person that plays a secondary role is unnecessary; though this specification has been recognized by some scholars, the content referred to by this specification still remains a dispute. The above practices or theoretical ideas both require further discussions. Identification of the person that plays a secondary role should stick to the normative and substantial thinking. To distinguish the principal offender from the accomplice, one should make a substantial judgment based on the theory of crime domination The follow-up judgment of the role of the prime culprit and accessory should be further segmented on the basis of labor distribution and classification. In a joint crime, the person that dominates the crime process might not necessarily be the person that plays the primary role. To judge the person that plays a secondary role calls for the combination of the ontology and the theory of norm. The judgment regards the facts related to the liability punishment as the focus of review. Since the joint crime is an illegal fact, it means that to identify the person that plays a secondary role in a joint crime can be based on illegal facts of this crime only. As to facts of the preventative punishment they cannot serve as the basis for judgment. In practice, to adopt the criminal record as the basis to identify the prime culprit requires more discussions. From the perspective of type analysis, the person that plays the secondary role as defined by Article 27 of The Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China and the principal offender might be overlapped. The person that plays the secondary role might be the (joint) criminal offender, partial accomplice under duress, collusive coprincipal in the majority, and abettor in the absolute majority that play a secondary role. The accessory is the person that aids in a joint crime, who is mutually excluded with the person that plays the secondary role.