着手的认定与未遂犯的处罚根据密切关联，映射出对犯罪本质的不同理解以及刑法处罚范围的历史变迁。传统的主观说、形式客观说与实质客观说，均试图对所有案件提出统一且具体的标准，对于未遂犯处罚根据的论证局限于人身危险性或者客观法益侵害，难以应对复杂的特殊案件。新近理论引入个案判断思路，强调功能主义视角以回应社会需求，虽然具有合理性，但仍然需要一定程度的抽象，构建个案判断的原则及步骤。本文的观点是，宜采用修正的客观未遂论之立场，沿用并重构实质客观说中的危险概念。未遂犯的可罚性，不仅是指形式上可以作为处罚对象这一事实，也是指达到值得处罚的程度这一实质评价。本文不赞成将可罚性作为独立的犯罪构成要件，而是主张将刑罚目的融入对构成要件的实质解释。法规范确证说强调刑罚目的的必要性，但放弃了法益这一明确客观标准，走向另一个模糊的极端。本文认为，应坚持法益保护为不法论证的核心。危险的判断原则为，以既有客观法益侵害为中心，兼顾一般预防目的的论证。刑法保护的法益不仅包括已经发生的具体案件中面临危险的既有法益，也涉及将来同种类型行为反复出现而受到威胁的潜在法益。判断既有法益危险，需要将行为人的主观计划作为判断资料之一，结合其他客观情状。一般预防的论证，则可以通过引入刑事政策展开。社会公众心理的概念不具有可以验真的定型性，应使刑事政策成为连接社会需求与刑法解释的中介。着手认定的具体步骤是：首先，区分实行未了的未遂与实行终了的未遂两种犯罪类型。就第一种类型而言，需要结合主观计划与全部客观情状，判断是否已经出现了值得处罚的法益侵害危险，此外无需再考察构成要件符合性；针对第二种类型，需要额外考察事态是否已经脱离了行为人的控制，且法益侵害结果是否具备发生的明确指向性。对特殊类型犯罪的着手，如隔离犯、间接正犯、共同正犯等情形，也应沿用该思路，先划分类别，再逐步判断。

The definition of starting point of attempted crimes and the punishment of it are closely related, which reflects the different understandings of the crime’s nature and the historical changes of the scope of criminal punishment. Traditional subjective theory, formal objective theory and substantive objective theory all attempt to put forward a unified and specific standard for all cases, and the argumentation for the basis of punishment for attempted crimes is limited to personal danger or objective legal interest infringement, which is difficult to deal with complex reality. Recent theories introduce the idea of case judgment and emphasize the functionalist perspective to respond to social needs. Although it is reasonable, it still needs a certain degree of abstraction and the principle and concrete steps of constructing case judgment.The viewpoint of this paper is that the position of the revised objective theory of attempt should be adopted, and the concept of danger in the substantial objective theory should be revised. The penalty of the attempted crime refers not only to the fact that it can be punished in form, but also to the substantive evaluation that it is worth punishing. The purpose of penalty can be integrated into the interpretation of the penalty. The corroboration theory of legal norms emphasizes the purpose of penalty, but gives up the clear objective standard of legal interest, which is not adopted in this paper. The judgment principle of danger should focus on the infringement of existing objective legal interests and take into account the demonstration of general prevention purposes. In other words, the legal interests protected by criminal law not only include the existing legal interests that are in danger in the specific cases that have occurred, but also involve the potential legal interests that are threatened by repeated acts of the same type in the future. To judge the existing legal interest danger, it is necessary to take the subjective plan of the suspect as one of the judgment materials, combined with other objective circumstances. The argument for general prevention can be made by introducing criminal policy. Social public psychology is not verifiable and stereotyped, so criminal policy should be the intermediary connecting social demand and criminal law interpretation.The concrete steps to proceed with the identification are: First, according to the plan of the perpetrator, distinguish between the attempted execution of the unfinished and the attempted execution of the two types. For the first type, it is necessary to combine subjective plans and objective circumstances to judge whether there is a danger of legal interest infringement worthy of punishment, and there is no need to examine the conformity of constitutive requirements. For the second type, it is necessary to examine whether the situation has been out of the control of the actor, and whether the outcome of the legal interest violation is certain to occur. To start with special types of crimes, we should follow this idea, divide the categories first, and then judge gradually.