Abstract: The different understanding of the relationship between Article 114 and Article 115 of the Criminal Law will not only affect the subjective elements of Article 115, but also directly determine the application of the provisions in various situations of attempt and suspension. The interpretation model of "basic offense-aggravated consequential offense" has flaws that cannot be fully resolved. In contrast, the interpretation model of "attempted offense-accomplished offense" has a more comprehensive response. As far as the subjective elements is concerned, paragraph 1 of Article 115 only refers to situations where the concrete potential damage and the actual harm are both intentional, while paragraph 2 of Article 115 refers to the situation where the concrete potential damage and the actual harm are both negligent.The situation of “intentional to the concrete potential damage while negligent for actual harm” does not exist. As far as the form of the stoppage of the crime is concerned, paragraph 1 of Article 115 is an accomplished offense, of course there are attempts and suspensions, while Article 114 is an attempted offense, which is the concrete potential damage offense that has been drafted as the accomplished offense by legislation. Therefore, there are attempts and suspensions as well. As far as the application of the provisons is concerned, if the concrete potential damage is intentionally caused but the actual harm does not occur due to reasons other than the will of the offender, it is the type of lapping of legal provisions with Article 114 (Completed) and paragraph 1 of Article 115 (Attempted), Article 114 (Completed) shall apply; If the concrete potential damage is intentionally caused but the actual harm is prevented by offender willfully, paragraph 1 of Article 115 (Suspended) shall apply; If the act cause the quasi-abstract potential damage rather than the concrete potential damage,Article 114 (Attempted) shall apply.