数额犯是“立法定性+定量”立法模式的典型代表，如何对数额犯中的数额进行教义学的理解，确定其在犯罪构成中的体系定位，进而体系性解决数额与故意认定、未遂适用以及共犯处罚的问题，一直是刑法理论上的难点。 仅根据刑法第13条但书与数额的关系，将数额止步于客观构成要件要素的定位，不能发掘数额表征不法的价值属性，更难以强化数额定罪量刑的功能属性。应将数额进一步理解为具有相对性、变易性的规范构成要件要素，这一价值属性揭示数额在不法表现上的相对性特征，以及数额犯不法认定上变易为记述性构成要件要素或整体性评价要素的两种可能。由此使得数额对故意的影响，对应转化为故意与规范构成要件要素、记述性构成要件要素或整体性评价要素的认定问题。 就数额与加重犯罪构成的关系，区分量刑规则与加重犯罪构成的学说，使得未遂犯适用刑罚轻缓化的效果值得肯定，但存在缺陷。应将数额理解为界分不同法定量刑幅度的不法量域，不同量刑幅度内数额彰显的罪量与刑量不尽然具备对应性。根据罪量与刑量对应性的特征所确立的未遂处罚规则主要包括：只规定一个量刑幅度的数额犯，不应处罚未遂犯；规定数个量刑幅度的，对未遂犯不应适用最高档量刑幅度。对既、未遂形态并存的一次行为，应将既遂评价到未遂形态中，整体认定一次行为的犯罪未遂。既、未遂处于不同量刑幅度的，按照规范构造固有的法条竞合关系定罪量刑，并避免重复评价既遂形态；既、未遂形态处于同一量刑幅度的，按照想象竞合规则明示两种形态，以处罚较重的犯罪形态处罚。 数额在表征基本犯不法侵害上具有基准性的价值，以数额所指向的法益侵害方向为基准，影响行为不法程度的情节存在四种关联类型。数额与情节共同表征行为的不法，影响数额犯的定罪与量刑，需要交互评价。根据不同的关联类型，数额与情节的交互评价表现为：（1）包含数额的情节类型，应在情节中综合认定数额表征的不法内涵，同时避免重复评价数额彰显的罪量；（2）依附于数额的情节类型，应根据不同的情节类型，相对性认定数额所承载的不法内涵。数额与情节的类型关联，为处罚“一对多”共犯参与行为提供根据。在限制从属性的理念下，共犯参与行为的不法评价可转化为：共犯参与行为的罪量从属于实行行为的罪量，适用于正犯的“累计数额”同样适用于共犯，而“累计数额”的延伸适用为叠加评价多个共犯行为的不法提供规范基础。
The crime of amount epitomizes a legislative mode of the legislature determining both the nature and the quantity. Comprehending the meaning of amount within the crime of amount in the dogmatics context, identifying its position in the constitutional system of crimes, and further systematically unraveling questions concerning the amount as to ascertainment of mens rea, application for criminal attempt and punishment for accomplices, have always been a perennial enigma in criminal law theories.To rely exclusively on the relationship between the proviso in Article 13 and the amount to place the amount as merely an objectively constitutional element fails to unearth attributes of the value as to unlawfulness the amount reveals, and concurrently, is more troublesome in strengthening the amount’s attributes of functions regarding conviction and sentencing. Consider taking the amount as a normatively constitutional element with relativity and variability, and the value attribute of which can disclose both the relativity property of the amount in assessing unlawfulness, and the two possibilities of either a narratively constitutional element or a holistically evaluative element the crime of amount identifies unlawfulness. Hence the amount’s impact on mens rea correspondingly shifts to questions of identifying mens rea as to the normatively constitutional element, the narratively constitutional element or the holistically evaluative element. In the relationship between the amount and the constitution of aggravated crime, doctrines that distinguish sentencing rules from the aggravated constitution of crime are praised for effectuating punishments for criminal attempt to be venial, but they have their own sets of flaws. Construe the amount as the quantity range of unlawfulness in various statutory ranges of sentencing it demarcates, and withindifferent statutory ranges of sentencing, crime amount and punishment amount are not necessarily correlated. Criminal attempt’s sentencing rules determined by the correspondence attribute of crime amount and punishment amount mainly comprise giving criminal attempt impunity for crime of amount with only one sentencing range and, negating the application of the highest statutory range of sentencing for criminal attempt with two or more ranges of sentencing under criminal law. For consummated crime and criminal attempt coexist in one conduct, incorporate the status of consummated crime into the status of criminal attempt to holistically identify this one conduct to be criminal attempt. For consummated crime and criminal attempt exist in different statutory ranges of sentencing, sentence and convict with normatively innate concurrent articles, and simultaneously avoid repetitive assessments upon verities of consummated status. For consummated crime and criminal exist in the same sentencing range, apply imaginative concurrence revealing its status as consummated or attempted, sentence and convict against the criminal status of severer punishment. The amount possesses a benchmarking value in representing unlawfulness infringement of basic crime benchmarking against the amount-indicated violation of legal interests, there are four relative types of circumstances affecting the level of unlawfulness of conducts. The amount dovetails circumstances displaying unlawfulness of conducts, influencing conviction and sentencing of the crime of amount, and entailing an interactive assessment. Subject to different associated status, the interactive assessment between amounts and circumstances exhibits as follows: (1) for amount-included circumstances, synthetically identify within those circumstances the content of unlawfulness the amount represents and concurrently, avoid repetitive assessments of the crime amount demonstrated by the amount; (2) for amount-affiliated circumstances, depending on various status of circumstances, relatively identify the content of unlawfulness the amount bears. The correlation of types between the amount and circumstances provides grounds for penalizing accomplices engaging in a one-to-multiple form. With the philosophy of restrictive dependency, the assessment of unlawfulness on accomplices’ engaging conducts can be transformed into three steps: the crime amount of accomplices’ engaging conducts is subject to the crime amount of their perpetrating conducts; stipulations of principals of “accumulative amounts” are equally applicable to accomplices; extended application of “accumulative amounts” provides the basis for normative assessment of unlawfulness as to superposed identification on multiple engaging conducts of accomplices.
