The constitutive requirements of the offence of robbery and those of quasi-robbery are different. Though distinct in essence, these two crimes are intended by law-makers to exert the same legal effects on offenders. Why? The key rests on whether or not the acts of threat and violence launched by offenders of quasi-robbery have reached the degree of rendering resistance impossible. In the legal practice field, many experts have held that it would profoundly contradict both the principle of equality, as well as that of accountability, if offenders of quasi-robbery, whose acts of physical violence were only triggered and have a lower degree of danger in nature, were made liable to the severe punishments meant for felons. It has made big-trouble in the judicial system. Theoretically, in Article 329 of the Criminal Code, the law-makers have enumerated fixed patterns of use of force, thus leaving no room of confusion in application. However,since purpose-oriented behavior is totally subjective, and since in practice, it is difficult for law enforcers to determine the motive of the offenders. In Constitutional Interpretation No. 630, the honorable justices officially stipulated that the physical force launched by offenders must have reached the extent of rendering resistance impossible before they could be convicted of quasi-robbery. After the interpretation, the general view in the academic circle acknowledges the crime as a consequential offense. Based on the forgoing explanations, it is the author's argument that the attempted form of quasi-robbery should be judged and determined based on the acts of physical violence that follows, instead of the larceny that precede, the use of threat or violence. This article will like to discuss this issues ，how to interpretation in criminal law.