未遂與中止未遂是刑法實務與學術上「持續被關注的議題」，尤其是在中止未遂領域的討論，實務與學說不僅未形成共識，各種被謹慎論證出來的觀點反而藉此更加鞏固其自身的立場。而「裁決」何種觀點孰優孰劣，往往不是取決於各種觀點的論證品質與論證的完整性，反而是其支持者的數量。這現象尤其體現在個別舉動理論和整體觀察說之間的爭論。本書希冀在法權關係的侵害與回復的意義下，論證未遂不法與中止行為之間的關聯。文獻上雖然也多次強調這兩者之間的關聯，認為中止行為說明了，為什麼已經（有責地）實現了未遂犯行的不法，卻還能免除刑罰。但這樣的概括性論述是不足的，為了讓這個說明更具有說服力，這個說明就必須與行為人所實現的不法，以及由該不法所產生的刑罰權等論證互相契合。因此，要認定免除刑罰的中止行為必需具備哪些要件，其出發點便是勾勒出未遂犯行的不法輪廓。我在此要指出，未遂不法有兩種形式，而這兩種形式原則上必須加以區別，因為其不同的特性會影響中止行為免除刑罰效果的論證。

Attempt and withdrawal belong to the ‘recurring topics’ of the criminal practice and criminal science. However, the discussion particularly in the area of withdrawal doesn’t lead to a consensus, but rather reinforce the diversity of different carefully justified controversial positions. Especially the dispute between the theory of single act and the doctrine of the overall observation is immediately ‘settled’ by the number of their representatives rather than by the quality and the coherence of their argumentation. Although emphasized many times, the present study intends to justify the connection between the wrongdoing of the attempt and the behavior of the withdrawal in the sense of violation and rehabilitation of legal relation. And at the same time, this connection should not be generally determined: the withdrawal gives the reason to free from the punishment of the realized (culpable) wrongdoing of the attempt act. In order to support this reason, it must be tailored to the realized wrongdoing and the related right of the state to inflict the punishment. The initial point to determine the requirement for the withdrawal behavior to free the attempt act from the punishment is the contouring of its wrongdoing. Thereby, it appears that there are two fundamentally different forms of the wrongdoing of the attempt act. The peculiarities of these forms will not have no influence on the justification to free the attempt act from the punishment.