The idea of adding the crime of "forging and tampering with archives" deviates from the legislative purpose of the Archives Law, ignores the hierarchical relationship between the interests of archives and the interests of criminal law, and is not conducive to the accurate and effective protection of archives by criminal law. The criminal law regulation of such acts should shift from the perspective of legislation to the perspective of interpretation, and realize the typological regulation of judicial acts through the typological distinction of legal interests and the substantive grasp of the illegality of acts. Specifically, through the substantive interpretation of the crime of infringing citizens' personal information, the blocking regulation of the subsequent sale or provision of personal archive information can be realized; through the comprehensive use of the "crime of forging and altering official documents of state organs", "the crime of using false identity documents" and "the crime of impersonation", the incidental regulation of the criminal law on the acts that infringe on social interests can be realized; through the strict definition of the standards for pleading guilty and accepting punishment and strict restrictions on the application of probation, the preventive regulation of the criminal law on the acts that infringe on the state's legal interests can be realized.