Abstract Unit crime has been a focus of both theoretical and practical judicature since it was defined. The variation of the judicature has caused problems to judicial cognizance of unit crime’s main body. The root of those problems is on the confusion of basic theories on unit crime, which leads to the ambiguity in judicial cognizance. To ensure the consistence of judicature is to solve those issues in the judicial practice. The paper starts from the current problematic situation of judicial cognizance, and gives a brief summary plications of it. Based on the criminal law, a theoretical solution is brought up for judicial cognizance of main body of unit crime. With that has been defined, a category is drew to distinguish internal, and motion of corporate crimes to further alleviate practical issues of their judicial cognizance and ensure the consistency of the practice of judicature and the intent of law. Part one: a brief introduction on unit crimes’ main body from internal to external of static unit crimes. Part two: identification on issues of judicial cognizance on unit crimes. A summary on plications of current of judicial cognizance on unit crimes at both internal and external perimeters among which there are directly responsible managers and other responsible crews in the internal of unit crime’s main body. There have been great debates on how to distinguish their relations. At the external scope, non-legal persons, on-person corporate, national bureaus, ‘detector firms’ and ‘debt pursuing firms’ are the focuses of plications. From a motion point of view, units’ self-assembly, breakdown or bankrupt all have their own difficulties. Part three: a theoretical solution is brought up for judicial cognizance of main body of unit crime. Identification on the essence, discourse and criminal responsibility of unit crim. Based on the criminal law, a theoretical solution is brought up for judicial cognizance of main body of unit crime, which is to define both its i
