What Is a Score Bug?

Legal terms and misunderstandings in criminal law refer to misunderstandings of the legal nature, consequences and related facts of the acts of the perpetrators. There are two types of misunderstandings in criminal law: legal misunderstandings and de facto misunderstandings.

Misunderstanding

Legal terms and misunderstandings in criminal law refer to misunderstandings of the legal nature, consequences and related facts of the acts of the perpetrators. There are two types of misunderstandings in criminal law: legal misunderstandings and de facto misunderstandings.

Chinese name

Misunderstanding

Foreign name

mistake of law

Classification

Legal and de facto misunderstandings

legally

The actor's legal understanding of the facts of his behavior is inconsistent with the legal punishment

In fact

The actor's understanding of the facts of his behavior is inconsistent with the objective facts

Legal misunderstanding refers to the misunderstanding of the legal nature of the conduct by the perpetrator. There are three situations:

1. " Imaginary non-sin ". The act was legally criminalized, and the perpetrator misconceived that it was not a crime. For example, A purchases precious wood to make furniture without permission, and does not realize that the act is a crime of illegally acquiring and processing precious trees and their products as stipulated in Article 344 of the Criminal Law. It is generally believed that ignorance of the law is not an acceptable excuse, so the principle of imaginary non-crime is not excluded, but the responsibility can be reduced as appropriate, because in the case of hypothetical innocence, after all, the perpetrator is not knowing what to do, subjective Malignant.

2. " Imaginary crime ." The act did not stipulate it as a crime in the criminal law, and the perpetrator mistakenly thought it was a crime. For example, the reproduction of a literary work of artistic value containing pornographic content originally did not constitute a crime, but he mistakenly considered it a crime. Because the basis for judging the nature of an act is the law, not the misunderstanding of the act by the perpetrator, the perpetrator's "imaginary crime" does not change the legal nature of the act and does not establish a crime. This misunderstanding has no effect on the nature of the behavior.

3 The perpetrator misunderstood the criminal charges and the severity of the crime . For example, a certain person steals the wire being used, a certain person considers himself a crime of theft, but in fact it is a crime of damaging power equipment according to law; a certain person thinks that there is no death penalty, but in fact his legal maximum sentence is death. This misidentification of the law does not involve the perpetrator's awareness of illegality (or harmfulness), and therefore does not affect the magnitude of the crime, nor does it affect the conviction and sentence.

The factual misunderstanding means that the perpetrator has an incorrect understanding of the facts related to his behavior. Misunderstanding of the facts, it is said that the "criminal compliance theory" is adopted to determine the guilt of the perpetrator. According to the "statutory compliance theory", if the actor expects that the facts are of the same legal nature as the facts that actually occurred, the actor cannot prevent the actor from taking intentional responsibility for the harmful results that occur due to the error. Conversely, if the nature of the law is different, the perpetrator is prevented from taking intentional responsibility for the consequences of the harm caused by the error. The same legal nature here refers to situations that belong to the same crime composition; different legal natures refer to situations that belong to different crimes. For example, A originally thought that B's handbag was full of cash and stole B's handbag, but found that there was no cash in it, but there were a lot of other belongings. Because this kind of error does not go beyond the scope of stealing the property of others, it does not affect A's responsibility for theft of the property in the stolen handbag. Conversely, A thought that B's handbag was full of cash and stole B's handbag. It was found that there was no cash in it, but there were 5 powerful plastic bombs. Because this kind of error is beyond the scope of the crime of theft and involves the crime of theft of explosives. Therefore, it is prevented that A bears the intentional blame for the fact that another component (the crime of theft of explosives) was violated due to the mistake.

1. Object error refers to the fact that the object that the actor intends to infringe and the object of actual infringement are different in legal nature (belonging to different crime components). For example, A stole B's handbag, opened it, and found a pistol inside. A theft of handbags is usually only deliberate theft of ordinary property, and in fact the result of the theft of firearms. Because firearms belong to the crime of theft of firearms under Article 127 of the Criminal Law; and property belongs to theft of crimes of Article 264 of the Criminal Law; they belong to different criminal compositions and reflect different objects: public safety and property rights. Factual errors are not just the errors of specific objects, but the errors of objects. The object error prevents the perpetrator from taking intentional guilt for the wrong fact. A bears the responsibility only within the limits of the crime of theft, and does not bear the intentional responsibility for the fact that the gun was stolen by mistake. A can only commit theft. However, if A holds the gun, he can establish the crime of illegal possession of firearms.

2. Object error means that the object that the actor intends to infringe is the same as the object that the actor actually infringes (belonging to the same constituent element). For example, Jia wanted to kill B, but mistakenly recognized C as B and killed C. The object of A's encroachment is B; the object of actual encroachment is C. Since both B and C are human beings and both belong to the object of intentional homicide as provided for in Article 232 of the Criminal Law, whether A or C kills B is depriving others of their lives, and neither exceeds the crime of intentional homicide The scope of the object did not change the nature of the criminal object. Therefore, A still constitutes an attempted homicide. It can be seen that according to the legal compliance theory, the object error has no effect on the nature of the behavior. For example, A, B, etc. in a residential area at night to find trouble, chased by the security of the community. During the flight, A felt that a security guard was behind him, and A pulled his sword and stabbed at the figure behind him. As a result, his companion, B, was killed. The court ruled that Mr. A constituted an attempted homicide. (Confirming an act of A in this case as an attempt means that it is determined that the death of A's partner B and B was intentional.)

It is irrelevant whether A or B's de facto mentality of the death of B is intentional or negligent in the application of legal compliance.

If the perpetrator's intended infringement and the actual infringement are partially the same in legal nature, they are different. The perpetrator only assumes the intentional responsibilities for the same part, and does not assume the intentional responsibilities for different parts.

3 Wrong means means that the perpetrator misused the criminal means. For example, A wanted to use poison to kill Zhang San, but misused a non-toxic drug because of misidentification (the means cannot be attempted). This error does not affect the nature of sin. Because this kind of error does not cause any unintended criminal consequences, it is not a subjective issue. The problem is the objective aspect. Should this objective "unable to commit" be treated as a crime?

4 Behavioral deviation , also known as target strike error, strike error, refers to the fact that the target of the actor's intended strike is not the same as the actual strike goal. Rujia wanted to kill Zhang San, but shot at Zhang San but hit Li Si next to Zhang San. Judging from the phenomenon, this is also the target error, but it is not because of recognition errors, but because of errors in the behavior itself (inaccurate marksmanship). This is an objective behavioral error rather than a subjective misunderstanding. Generally, the behavioral error is also solved by the legal compliance theory, that is, the identification method of the identification error of the applicable object. If the target of the intended strike and the target of the actual strike (because of the deviation in behavior) are consistent within the scope of the law, it will not prevent the actor from taking intentional blame for the goal of the accidental strike. Undertake intentional blame.

5. Causality error refers to the misunderstanding of the actual situation of the causal relationship between the actor and his result. (1) the behavior caused the intended result, but mistakenly thought that it did not result; (2) the behavior did not actually cause the intended result, but mistakenly thought that it caused it; (3) knew that the behavior had caused the intended result, but Misunderstanding what caused the result. Errors in all three cases have no effect on guilt.