Abstract: The theory of interpreting criminal law stays at the scene of constructing a categorical monism, and mixes method, efficacy and standpoint in interpretation, thus resulting in a circulation of methodology. The historical interpretation in itself is a route of normative interpretation and its deep-going, and in fact it does not get rid of the method of objectivism or subjectivism. The so-called subjective or objective interpretation is rather a standpoint than a method, and two different norms must not be mixed together. If it is to adhere interpreting from the point of purpose, choosing objectivism is obviously beneficial to heighten the efficacy significance of position, and to avoiding a circulating proofing. The so-called systematic interpretation is an analogy in the process of containing and assimilating, and it is not a method of interpretation in itself, for it is only a step in every containing and assimilating. The interpreting form conforming to constitution is now still summed up as a method, but it ought to be transformed into a highest way of understanding the purpose of criminal law. Hence the order of interpreting criminal law must rely on the position of legal norms, avoid to become a sheer “consultation” without basic norms, and this is the foundation for interpreting position. In this way, the ladder is formed by conforming to norms, criminal codes and constitution of normative understanding.