Determination of the manner of involvement in a crime with the aim of identifying the responsible party has always been challenging, though some believe that distinguishing the notions of direct perpetration from the indirect one is more of a philosophical nature than having an independent effect, However, criminal behavior and its outcome are objective and material facts subject to the rules of causality, and complicity in crime is also regulated and systematic, in adherence to the same rules. On the other hand, the mental element (mens rea) lacks the necessary characteristics for the development of a causal relationship, and regardless of whether the causal relationship is related to the perpetrator's mind or not, is the outcome of his behavior. The involvement of the aforementioned factors in the commission of a crime can also occur jointly but with different characteristics. From this perspective, a crime may occur with the simultaneous intentional and unintentional behavior of two factors, These factors can also intervene in this process as a direct perpetrator or one who indirectly causes the crime. The reason for the effectiveness of these factors may also be due to the presence of factors that are discussed under the heading of providing the condition or aiding and abetting in commission of a crime. In any case, the outcome of the crime is never attributed to the two aforementioned factors, In this article, with a preliminary explanation in this regard, we will criticize judgment number 140225390012198119 rendered by the Fifth Branch of the Criminal Court 1 of Khorasan Razavi Province, and decision number 140325390011974571 rendered by the Sixth Branch of the Criminal Court of Khorasan Razavi Province (court of the same level), as well as decision number 140306390001068056 issued by Branch 48 of the Supreme Court.