How to qualify a crime. Corpus delicti and qualification of crimes with evaluative features To qualify the crime

The first rule is that the deed must be directly provided by the criminal law as. This rule is based on the principle of legality, enshrined in Art. 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, according to part 1 of which "the criminality of the act, as well as its punishability and other criminal-legal consequences are determined only by this Code", and part 2 - "the application of the criminal law by analogy is not allowed"

In accordance with this rule, it is necessary that the committed act be described in the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, including with reference to other or other - not criminal - laws and (or) other regulatory legal acts or international treaties of the Russian Federation, and meet the requirements established in the norms of the General part of this Criminal Code.

How to qualify a crime? st

In the course of an accident, I received bodily harm, which did not entail. harm to health, namely citizen K., moving his backside, touched my leg. This is where it all started. As a result, I reprimanded him. During which he began to resent and insult me. I note that it struck me immediately that he was in some kind of insanely aggressive state, possibly drunk or drug intoxication, such a feeling that he wanted to attack and beat someone.

How to Qualify a Crime

To qualify a crime, speaking in legislative language, means nothing more than to establish a relationship between the committed act and the composition of the very, established by the framework of the law. Qualification, in this case, is a dynamic process, since at certain stages of the investigation, the qualification itself will change in accordance with the characteristics and specificity of actions.

At the beginning of an investigation into fact, very often there is no availability of the necessary information on, but in the course of the investigation, such material accumulates and by the end of the investigation process, when an indictment is issued by the investigating authorities, there is a full amount of information on the crime committed.

Qualification of crimes committed with complicity

Part 1 of Art. 34 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation establishes that the responsibility of accomplices is determined by the nature and degree of the actual participation of each of them in the commission of the crime. There is no doubt that the nature of the participation of each accomplice in the crime must be reflected in the qualifications of what he has done. However, the instructions of the Criminal Code require clarification.

The actions of the co-executors in accordance with Art.

Qualification of crimes

Correct qualification is an indispensable observance of the principle of legality of the court, prosecutorial authorities, investigation and inquiry bodies. The concept and elements of the composition (objective and subjective aspects), its criminal law significance.

Qualification of a crime: concept and types, process, composition. The main features of the subject of a crime. The influence of the age of the perpetrator on qualifications.

Qualified offense

(English qualified crime) - in the criminal law of the Russian Federation. having one or more signs directly provided for by the relevant article of the special part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation *, which indicate an increased social danger of a given criminal act in comparison with an unqualified (simple) type of the same. These signs are called qualifying ones and can relate to any circumstance that characterizes the crime: to the characteristics of the consequences that have occurred (large amount of damage, grave consequences, etc.); to the method of committing the crime (with the use of violence, danger to the life or health of many people, etc.); to the subject of the crime (commission of a crime by an organized group, etc.).

Qualify offense

Visitors to the legal consultation asked 46 questions on the topic "Qualify". On average, the answer to a question appears in 15 minutes, and to a question we give a guarantee of at least two answers, which will begin to arrive within 5 minutes!

My relative was sentenced under Article 159 Part 4 to 7 years in prison. In the verdict, the judge qualified the crime as a single continued, although all the victims are different, the time of the commission is 05/17/2015

By a court verdict, a crime was qualified under article 159 part 4.

Online lectures

Qualification rules - techniques and methods used by a law enforcement officer in the process of qualification, which are based on the norms of the criminal law, decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court, judicial practice, as well as the doctrine of criminal law.

- Art. 8 of the Criminal Code, the deed must contain a specific composition, since the basis of criminal liability is the commission of a socially dangerous act containing all the signs of composition.

The negative and positive signs of the composition are highlighted.

Patients' rights on paper and in life Saversky Alexander Vladimirovich

3. An example of the qualification of a crime

Now it makes sense to analyze a specific example in order to see the logic of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in action.

Example

Citizen N applied to hospital X for an artificial termination of pregnancy (abortion) at the 11th week of pregnancy. As a result of the surgery, the pregnancy was terminated, but perforation of the uterus occurred, which caused internal bleeding, which was not noticed by the operating doctor D, who did not show the necessary care and caution. The woman went home, and in the evening she developed severe weakness, pains in the lower abdomen, profuse discharge from the genitals, nausea and vomiting. An ambulance hospitalized her, but the woman died as a result of blood loss.

1. The object of the crime under consideration is social relations that ensure the safety of human life, in this case, the relationship between the operating doctor D of the hospital X and the citizen N, based on blanket dispositions contained in legislation, regulations, rules and regulations on the protection of public health.

2. The objective side of the crime is that doctor D, having everything necessary (operating room, instrument, assistants and other necessary conditions), performed the operation poorly, made a gross mistake and did not track the bleeding that occurred. Doctor D was obliged in his work to be guided by the current legislation on the protection of the health of citizens, regulations, rules, knowledge about the achievements of medicine, set forth in the special literature on this issue, and his job description, which would exclude an error.

3. The death of the victim is in an obvious causal relationship with the actions of the doctor, which was confirmed by the act of the pathological and anatomical autopsy of the corpse: exsanguination of organs.

4. The subject of the crime is special; it is a person of the medical profession who performs functions in accordance with this profession, which in our case is the doctor D.

5. To establish the degree of guilt, it is necessary to separate one form of guilt from another: intent from negligence. To do this, it is initially necessary to separate the action of producing an abortion from the action that led to the perforation, since a crime is always a specific, definite dangerous action. The doctor's actions were initially aimed at producing an abortion, and not at perforating the uterus. The act of performing an abortion is not socially dangerous if performed professionally. The act of perforation is dangerous - it is precisely this that is subject to punishment.

When determining intent, despite the fact that we are talking about the awareness of the social danger of actions and the doctor must be aware of this danger during the performance of an abortion, the harm accompanying the act is not punishable. The doctor was unaware that he had perforated the uterus. Thus, he was not aware of the danger (it is almost impossible to prove the opposite in this situation), which means that there was no intent to commit a crime. This is enough to remove the blame for the murder under Art. 105, in particular, and under item d) part 2 of this article: "murder: ... of a woman who is obviously pregnant for the guilty party."

Then it becomes necessary to establish the type of negligence: frivolity or negligence.

Since, with frivolity, the person realizes that as a result of his actions, a danger may arise, but hopes to avoid or prevent it, then we are always talking about some kind of deliberate action, the dangerous consequences of which can be avoided. This cannot be said about the action of the doctor, who was not at all going to perforate the uterus. Moreover, he could not hope in advance for any prevention of danger, since he was not going to do anything dangerous. Thus, there is no frivolous guilt.

Despite the fact that the doctor was not aware of the indirect consequences of abortion in the form of perforation, he nevertheless had to foresee such a possibility, having special knowledge in the field of medicine that he studied and worked in. In addition, perforation of the uterus is not an isolated phenomenon and is described in the medical literature quite widely, in particular on the question of how to prevent it. Moreover, working as a surgical instrument in the human body, he had to assume the possibility of damage to the walls of the uterus, with which the instrument came in contact.

Thus, doctor D, with the necessary care and foresight, had (due to his official duties and knowledge) and could (he was sane, nothing prevented him) to foresee the onset of the consequences of surgical intervention in the form of uterine perforation and avoid them.

Then an inattentive attitude to one's business, an indiscretion in relation to the results of one's actions gives us the subjective side of the crime, indicating negligence.

Since we are also talking about causing death “as a result of improper performance by a person of his professional duties,” the corpus delicti is evident and the doctor must be punished under Part 2 of Article 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Section 109... Causing death by negligence

2. Causing death by negligence as a result of improper performance by a person of his professional duties -

shall be punishable by restraint of liberty for a term of up to three years, or imprisonment for the same term, with or without deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years.

6. This would be the end if the doctor noticed the bleeding, would take measures to save the woman, but she would die anyway. Let me tell you from experience: the investigator would definitely stop there.

However, in this case, the doctor not only perforated the uterus, but did not notice either this or the resulting bleeding, that is, he did not provide medical assistance. This leads to the need to rethink the qualifications and look at Part 2 of Art. 124 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation:

Section 124... Failure to provide assistance to the patient

1. Failure to provide assistance to a patient without valid excuses by a person obliged to provide it in accordance with the law or with a special rule, if this entailed, through negligence, the infliction of moderate harm to the patient's health, - shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of up to forty thousand rubles, or in the amount of wages, or any other income of the convicted person for a period of up to three months, or correctional labor for a term of up to one year, or arrest for a term of two to four months.

2. The same act, if it entailed by negligence the death of the patient or the infliction of grievous harm to his health, - shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of up to three years, with or without the deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years.

From the moment of uterine perforation onset of bleeding, citizen N is considered sick for this, and bleeding is a new disease requiring immediate medical attention. Doctor D was supposed to diagnose this condition, observe the woman for at least a few hours (up to 24), but did not.

The corpus delicti is obvious - inaction, resulting in death (failure to provide assistance to the patient).

The object of the crime is the same - the safety of human life. The objective side is the same, with the exception of the usually imposed requirements not for the production of abortions, but for the diagnosis and treatment of bleeding.

The subjective side is the same.

Thus, we are dealing with a kind of double crime, which, in accordance with Art. 17 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation could be regarded as a set of crimes. However, the aggregate of crimes consists either of two or more different crimes committed by two or more independent actions (real aggregate), or of two or more crimes committed by one action (ideal aggregate).

An ideal set, as well as a real set of crimes, united by unity of intention, should be distinguished from complex (or multi-component) crimes, when the legislator brings together various crimes, one of which serves as a stage, method, method of committing the entire crime as a whole. In such cases, a separate qualification of the relevant crimes is not required, since, by constructing a complex composition, the legislator reflected in the amount of the corresponding punishment the increased danger of such crimes.

In our case, the result of both crimes was the same - the death of a woman.

And the above analysis is necessary in order to understand the true causes of death, including the possibility of its prevention.

This text is an introductory fragment.

§ 4. Corpus delicti as an instrument of qualification From the definition of qualification and the entire subsequent presentation, it is obvious that qualification is inseparably linked with the concept of corpus delicti and its features. Dual service role of corpus delicti

Chapter 2 Corpus delicti and its functions during qualification

§ 1. Criminal law and corpus delicti as the basis for the qualification of crimes Determination of the qualification of crimes as the establishment and legal consolidation of the identity of legally significant signs of a really committed act with signs of corpus delicti

Chapter 5 Changing the qualification of a crime

Chapter II Corpus delicti as a criminal legal basis for qualification

13. The concept of the subject of the crime and its relationship with the object of the crime. Multi-object crimes Subject of crime - objects of the material world, which are directly affected by the criminal, carrying out an encroachment on the object of the crime, and

52. The concept, types and significance of the qualification of crimes. The process of qualifying crimes The qualification of a crime is the establishment and legal consolidation of the identity between the features of the committed act and the features of the corpus delicti. Qualification

Example No. 1 The tax authority on February 15, 1995 received information from a notary that the inheritance was opened from September 10, 1994 by the heir of the first stage. The value of the inherited property was 25,000,000 rubles. Minimum monthly wage on the day of opening the inheritance

Example No. 2 The tax authority on December 15, 1994 received information from a notary that the inheritance was opened from June 1, 1994 by the heir of the first stage living with the testator. The total value of the inherited property was 40,000,000 rubles. (inherited property

Example No. 1 If, during 1994, an individual from the same donor who is not in a relationship with the donee received three gifts under notarized donation agreements (in January - in the amount of 1,000,000 rubles, in April - in the amount RUB 5,000,000 and

Example No. 2 Citizen N. in January 1995 received an apartment worth 10,000,000 rubles as a gift, which belonged to his mother and her spouse, who is not the donee's father, on the basis of common joint ownership.

Example No. 3 An individual in January 1995 donated an apartment worth 35,000,000 rubles. two individuals (spouses) in common joint property with the donor in various kinship relations (daughter and son-in-law). The minimum monthly wage per day

Example No. 1 Payment notice in the amount of 55 thousand rubles. for the payment of tax on property transferred by inheritance or donation, was handed over to the payer on March 4, 1995, the tax must be paid no later than June 3, 1995, i.e., the last day of payment is considered to be June 3. Citizen in

Example No. 2 Payment notice in the amount of 50 thousand rubles. for the payment of tax on property transferred by inheritance or donation, was handed over to the payer on March 4, 1995, the tax must be paid no later than June 3, 1995, i.e., the last day of payment is considered to be June 3. By written

3.47. Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR "On the qualification of violations of the rules of driving or operating cars by military personnel and other persons who are criminally liable under the Law on Criminal Responsibility for Military Crimes" dated March 30, 1973.

An example of an accident with a fatal outcome In June 2006, at about 5:30 pm, driver V., driving a GAZ-322131 car belonging to Sh., Was driving in the city [...] along the street. Komarova in the direction from the street. Start to st. Queen, while in violation of the requirements of paragraphs 1.3, 1.5, 9.9, 10.1 of the SDA,

Example of qualifying a crime

Now it makes sense to analyze a specific example in order to see the logic of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in action.

Example. CitizenNwent to the hospitalXabout artificial termination of pregnancy (abortion) at the 11th week of pregnancy. As a result of surgery, the pregnancy was terminated, but perforation of the uterus occurred, which caused internal bleeding, which was not noticed by the operating doctor, who did not show the necessary care and caution. The woman went home, and in the evening she developed severe weakness, pains in the lower abdomen, profuse discharge from the genitals, nausea and vomiting. An ambulance hospitalized her, but the woman died as a result of blood loss.

1. The object of the crime under consideration is social relations that ensure the safety of human life, in this case - the relationship between the operating doctor D of the hospital X and the citizen N, based on blanket dispositions contained in legislation, regulations, rules and regulations on the protection of public health.

2. The objective side of the crime is that doctor D, having everything necessary (operating room, instrument, assistants and other necessary conditions), performed the operation poorly, made a gross mistake and did not track the bleeding that occurred. The doctor D was obliged in his work to be guided by the current legislation on the protection of the health of citizens, regulations, rules, knowledge about the achievements of medicine, set out in the special literature on this issue, and his job description, which would exclude an error.

3. The death of the victim is in an obvious causal connection with the actions of the doctor, which was confirmed by the act of the pathological and anatomical autopsy of the corpse: exsanguination of organs.

4. The subject of the crime is special; it is a person of the medical profession who performs functions in accordance with this profession, which in our case is the doctor D.

When determining intent, despite the fact that we are talking about the awareness of the social danger of actions and the doctor must be aware of this danger during the abortion, the harm accompanying the act is not punishable. The doctor was unaware that he had perforated the uterus. Thus, he was not aware of the danger (the opposite is almost impossible to prove in this situation), and, therefore, there was no intent to commit a crime. This is enough to remove the blame for the murder under Art. 105, in particular, and under item d) part 2 of this article: "murder: ... of a woman who is obviously pregnant for the guilty party."

Then it becomes necessary to establish the type of negligence: frivolity or negligence.

Despite the fact that the doctor was not aware of the indirect consequences of abortion in the form of perforation, he, nevertheless, had to foresee such a possibility, having special knowledge in the field of medicine that he studied and worked in. In addition, perforation of the uterus is not an isolated phenomenon and is described in the medical literature quite widely, in particular, on the question of how to prevent it. Moreover, working as a surgical instrument in the human body, he had to assume the possibility of damage to the walls of the uterus, with which the instrument came in contact.

Thus, the doctor D, with the necessary care and foresight, had to (by virtue of his job duties and knowledge) and could (he was sane, nothing prevented him) to foresee the onset of the consequences of surgical intervention in the form of uterine perforation and to avoid them.

Then an inattentive attitude to one's business, an indiscretion in relation to the results of one's actions gives us the subjective side of the crime, indicating negligence.

Since we are also talking about causing death “as a result of improper performance by a person of his professional duties,” the corpus delicti is obvious, and the doctor must be punished under Part 2 of Article 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

§ 109 Causing death by negligence

2. Causing death by negligence as a result of improper performance by a person of his professional duties -

6. This would be the end if the doctor noticed the bleeding, he would take measures to save the woman, but she would still die. Let me tell you from experience: the investigator would definitely stop there.

However, in this case, the doctor not only perforated the uterus, but did not notice either this or the resulting bleeding, that is, did not provide medical assistance. This leads to the need to rethink the qualifications and look at Part 2 of Art. 124 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation:

§ 124 Failure to provide assistance to a patient

1. Failure to provide assistance to a patient without good reason by a person who is obliged to provide it in accordance with the law or with a special rule, if this has entailed, through negligence, the infliction of moderate harm to the patient's health, -

shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of up to forty thousand rubles, or in the amount of the wage or salary, or any other income of the convicted person for a period of up to three months, or correctional labor for a term of up to one year, or arrest for a term of two to four months.

2. The same act, if it entailed the death of the patient by negligence or the infliction of grievous harm to his health, -

is punished with imprisonment for a term of up to three years, with or without deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years

From the moment the uterus is perforated and bleeding occurs, citizen N is considered sick for this, and bleeding is a new disease requiring immediate medical attention. Doctor D had to diagnose this condition, observe the woman for at least a few hours (up to 24 hours), but did not.

The corpus delicti is obvious - inaction, resulting in death (failure to provide assistance to the patient).

The subjective side is the same.

The ideal aggregate, as well as the real aggregate of crimes united by a unity of intention, should be distinguished from complex (or multi-component) crimes, when the legislator brings together various crimes into a single corpus delicti, one of which serves as a stage, method, method of committing the entire crime as a whole. In such cases, a separate qualification of the relevant crimes is not required, since, by constructing a complex composition, the legislator reflected in the amount of the corresponding punishment the increased danger of such crimes.

In our case, the result of both crimes was the same - the death of a woman.

And the above analysis is necessary in order to understand the true causes of death, including the possibility of its prevention.

The theory of criminal law has recently established what constitutes a crime. In practice, this concept has been used for a long time, but there was no exact content and definition.

The term "crime"

To understand what the composition is, what is the basis and how the crime is qualified, it is necessary to understand the concept itself.

A crime is an act or inaction (act) that is socially dangerous. In simple words - harm from this event is expressed in damage to interests that fall under the jurisdiction of criminal law.

For example, theft harms property rights that are accepted in society. The act that formally falls under but does not contain signs of public danger will not be a crime. For example, inflicting bodily harm on a maniac in order to protect children from him. If viewed formally, the action is subject to punishment, but it has no social danger, which means that there is no question of a crime.

Concept

The system of subjective and objective elements (signs) of acts (actions or inaction), provided for both in the hypothesis and in the disposition of norms, and characterizing a certain dangerous act as criminal, is called a crime.

Consists of a composition of 4 constituent subsystems:

the object of the offense;
the objective side of the offense;
subjective side of the crime;
the subject of the atrocity.

The significance of the composition lies in the fact that it serves as the basis for the appointment of criminal liability. When any element of the composition is missing, criminal liability does not arise. For example, the act was committed by a person who was declared insane. In such a situation, there is no subject of the crime. This means that the verdict cannot be passed, since such a person is not prosecuted.

Corpus delicti in the Criminal Code

The composition and qualification of crimes in the criminal legislation are not disclosed. This term is used by investigative and judicial practice and the theory of criminal law.

It is customary to understand the composition of the combination of objective and subjective signs, which, according to the law, characterize a certain socially dangerous act as a crime.

The corpus delicti is a legislative image of a specific criminal act, which is described in specific articles of the Special Section of the Criminal Code.

Qualification of crimes

Translated from Latin, "qualification" is quality. They talk about qualifications in relation to crimes in two senses:

as a certain logical process or activity;
as a result, where the activity received a final assessment of the dangerous type of behavior and the concept is assigned to the act in a certain document.

In order to correctly qualify a crime, and then make the right decision regarding punishment, it is necessary to figure out how to divide the crimes.

Allocate the logical, philosophical, legal, psychological basis of qualifications.

In the field of criminal law, qualification is understood as the establishment of the conformity or equality of the characteristics that the committed dangerous act has with the signs that are provided for by law.

The conclusion about whether there are such signs and whether they correspond to those described is made on the basis of a comparison of the act with the existing norms. The comparison is made only on one basis of generally recognized criminal law standards, other signs are not taken into account.

The very concept of corpus delicti is influenced by the qualification of the crime.

For example, for the corpus delicti in illegal hunting, the attribute “crime scene” is considered mandatory. The decision made on the issue will depend on him.

Qualification is an assessment of the criminal-legal nature of those factual circumstances in the case that took place. Correctly established qualifications depend on the correct establishment of the circumstances.

A crime is qualified in the course of a preliminary investigation (inquiry, preliminary investigation), as well as a trial, and then a sentence. Also, the assignment of qualifications is included in the tasks of supervisory and cassation proceedings in criminal cases. Conclusions that the act contains a corpus delicti that complies with the established criminal law norms are reflected in the documentation:

a resolution to initiate a case or disagreement to initiate;
a decision that it is necessary to bring a person as an accused;
application of preventive measures;
conviction;
indictment.

In these documents, the names of all articles under which the crime falls are recorded in detail and accurately.

The value of qualifications

Determination of corpus delicti and qualification of crimes is one of the most crucial moments in the work of law enforcement agencies. The law enforcement officer is vested with the broadest powers in matters of decision-making on the qualification of a crime.

The same moment stipulates full responsibility for the decision taken by the law enforcement officer in the case.

The problems of qualifying crimes in terms of their composition still exist, despite numerous attempts to carry out a clear classification. The establishment in an act of signs of a specific corpus delicti can be achieved only by qualifying a crime. Here it acts as a justification from the point of view of law, according to which a person is brought to criminal responsibility, coercive measures are applied, charges are brought, punishments are determined or punishment is executed.

As a result, qualification is not only a reflection of protective criminal law relations, but also reflects adjacent criminal executive and criminal procedural relations.

Correct qualification is the key to delivering the right verdict.

Qualification types

The corpus delicti and the qualification of crimes at the time of its definition imply the division of the qualification process into different subtypes. The corpus delicti is the basis for qualifying the crime.

Qualification types:

Official. This qualification is given by an investigator, inquiry officer or court at all stages of criminal proceedings.
Unofficial. It is given by students, academics, and others in private.

Qualification process

During the qualification of crimes, several actions are performed:

it is being ascertained whether this act is criminal (compliance with Article 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation);
it turns out who is the object (and in some cases - the subject) of the criminal encroachment;
the analysis of features that are included in the objective and subjective sides is carried out;
defines the legal requirements that apply to the subject of the crime.

The correct qualification of a crime makes it possible to clarify the issue of the presence or absence of criminal liability, and also allows the court to determine a just punishment for the committed act.

Assessment characteristics in qualifications

The qualification of corpus delicti with evaluative features is an important stage in the analysis of the act.

Evaluation signs are variable. Their content significantly depends on what kind of legal awareness is observed in the lawyer who applies the law. These signs are the closest to the constantly changing situation, which has to be assessed by the investigating authorities, the prosecutor's office and the court. And with a certain degree of convention, they are usually called "evaluative" features.

An example of a typical evaluative feature would be an indication of "significant harm" that is caused by abuse of power, public or state interests, as well as interests that are protected by law, public interests and the interests and rights of citizens.

Significant harm

Since the very concept of “substantial harm” is not disclosed in the Criminal Code, the final decision on whether the crime itself is substantial or not is made only by the court.

The corpus delicti and the qualification of crimes are one of the most crucial stages in all judicial proceedings. At the same time, evaluative concepts are a reflection of the relationship between objects or phenomena, and also characterize the result of comparing an object with a certain sample (standard or etalon).

It should be noted that the concept of a standard as applied to crimes is considered very specifically.

The value of corpus delicti for qualification

First of all, it is to be the basis for incurring criminal liability. This means that a person whose act contains corpus delicti is subject to criminal prosecution by the prosecutor's office, the court and the investigation, and the person himself is not obliged to bear such responsibility.

The second function that corpus delicti has is to help qualifications. The value of the corpus delicti for the qualification of crimes consists in establishing the necessary conformity, identity, identification of the offense with the characteristics of the corpus delicti, which are provided for in the legal norm.

A well-defined corpus delicti has social and criminal law significance.

The value of corpus delicti for the qualification of crimes of a general social nature lies in the expression of a negative assessment of society on the totality of signs that form a certain corpus delicti. Also, the state can express its attitude to this issue.

The criminal law significance is expressed in a number of different points.

Qualifying errors

Unfortunately, the qualification of an act according to the composition of crimes may have errors.

Qualification errors are incorrectly established absence or presence of signs of corpus delicti, as well as compliance with its description in parts of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (definition by N.F. Kuznetsova). Such errors are of a criminal-legal nature, in contrast to criminal-procedural ones. The main sources of such errors are deficiencies in law enforcement and inadequacies in legislation.

Qualifying errors are summarized in three groups:

The presence of corpus delicti is not recognized where it is.
It is recognized that corpus delicti is present where it is absent.
The wrong provision of the Criminal Code for the implementation of qualifications is chosen.

Qualification of related crimes

The qualification of related offenses has certain difficulties.

Adjacent compounds are related in the nature of the danger they pose to society, and also differ in one or more common characteristics. The Criminal Code contains at least 150 related offenses.

To qualify such crimes, it is important to highlight the elements that will delimit them. For example, in the case of theft of someone else's property, the form of appropriation of someone else's will serve as the separating signs. If theft is secret theft, robbery is open, and robbery is violent.

Related crimes of a service nature are different objects - the interests of service in different organizations, against the interests of public service, justice, military service.

The qualification of crimes on the basis of corpus delicti in related cases, as well as the determination of the kinship of actions, make it possible to define such a concept as repeated convictions and crimes. This means that there can be several objects. Criminologically, this decision is quite justified.

conclusions

The corpus delicti, the types of corpus delicti, the qualification of a crime in the aggregate form the only basis for determining criminal liability. They serve as the correct legal qualification to which a criminal act is subject, and are also the basis for the court to determine the amount of punishment, its type and severity, and also to be able to establish another measure of criminal liability.

An accurate and correct definition of the corpus delicti is one of the guarantees that the rights and freedoms of a person and citizen will be protected, law and order will be observed and strengthened, and the state will continue to have signs of a democratic and legal one.

And assessments of the decision

When solving the problem, it is necessary to show that the actions of the perpetrator contain all the signs of corpus delicti. Evidence of the correspondence of the signs of the objective side of the committed act to the signs of the objective side of the corpus delicti begins with an understanding of the possible forms of the act laid down by the legislator in the disposition of the criminal law norm, and showing the forms of the committed act in the case. If the disposition of the article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is blanket, it is necessary to use normative acts that disclose the content of the concepts and signs indicated in the disposition of the criminal law norm. Based on the structure of the crime, it is necessary to show what kind of structure it is - formal or material, and in accordance with this determine whether the crime is over. To prove the correspondence of the subjective signs of the deed to the signs of the corpus delicti, it is necessary to show the subject content of the forms and types of guilt possible in this composition and to find one of them when analyzing the act committed by the subject described in the incident. It is necessary to take into account the optional signs of the subjective side of the corpus delicti - motive and purpose. As for the subject of the crime, when solving problems, unless otherwise indicated, it is presumed that the subjects mentioned in the incidents are sane and have reached the age of criminal responsibility. Special proof is required if the subject of the committed act has special signs, if the corresponding corpus delicti is characterized by a special subject. If several persons who have committed criminal offenses appear in the case, a criminal-legal assessment of the behavior of each of them must be given. If a crime is committed with complicity, the type of each of the accomplices should be determined, reflecting it in the qualifications, and it must be proved that the crime was committed with complicity. If, despite the presence of several persons, complicity is absent and each person is liable for the solely committed act, it is necessary to justify why the persons mentioned in the case are not accomplices.

An example of solving the problem

Task. Ivanov and Petrov, knowing that in Nikolayev's apartment there is 4 million rubles received from the bank for the purchase of an apartment, decided to take possession of the money by entering Nikolayev's apartment. Knowing that Nikolayev's wife might be in the apartment, Ivanov took with him a shotgun of a smooth-bore hunting rifle bought from an unidentified person in order to intimidate the hostess, if necessary, and informed Petrov about this, who did not object to such a plan. After ringing the doorbell of the Nikolayevs' apartment, Ivanov and Petrov introduced themselves as employees of the city electrical network, checking the meter readings. After Nikolaeva opened the door for them, they burst into the apartment. Ivanov put a sawed-off shotgun to the victim's head and demanded information about the location of the money. Petrov was looking for money at this time. Nikolaeva began to call for help, trying to escape and stop Petrov. Ivanov shot her in the head, causing the victim to die at the crime scene. Not finding money, the perpetrators fled. Qualify their actions.

Solution. Ivanov and Petrov agreed to take possession of Nikolayev's money, frightening his wife with a sawn-off shotgun. But they did not succeed for reasons beyond their control - they did not find the money in the apartment and hurried to hide, fearing exposure. Hence, it can be assumed that they tried to commit a crime against property, threatening with violence. The elements of crimes against property are concentrated in Ch. 21 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Violent crimes against property are provided for in Art. 161 ("Robbery") and Art. 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Robbery”). Violent robbery is an open theft of someone else's property with the use of violence that is not dangerous to life or health, or the threat of such violence (clause "d", part 2 of article 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Robbery is an attack in order to steal someone else's property, committed with the use of violence dangerous to life or health, or with the threat of such violence (part 1 of article 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). An attack is characterized by the suddenness of violent influence on the victim or the creation of the danger of using violence. Robbery differs from robbery mainly in the amount of violence. The concept of violence that is dangerous and not dangerous to life or health is proposed in paragraph 21 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 27, 2002 (as amended on December 23, 2010) “On judicial practice in cases of theft, robbery and robbery”. Violence not dangerous to life or health should be understood as beating or committing other violent actions associated with causing physical pain to the victim or restricting his freedom (tying hands, using handcuffs, leaving in a closed room, etc.), if they are at the time of use did not create a real danger to the life or health of the victim. Violence dangerous to life or health should be understood as such violence that resulted in the infliction of grave, moderate or minor harm to the victim's health or did not result in harm to health, but at the time of use created a real danger to the victim's life or health. The threat of robbery and robbery presupposes the impact on the victim's psyche only by the possibility of using violence. Ivanov and Petrov, intending to use the sawn-off shotgun to intimidate the victim, counted on her subjective perception of these actions as a threat of violence dangerous to life or health. This was exactly how Nikolaeva perceived the threat. Consequently, the requirement to transfer money under the threat of a sawn-off falls under the signs of the objective side of robbery. Despite the fact that the guilty did not succeed in taking possession of the Nikolayevs' money, the crime is considered completed precisely from the moment of the demand to immediately transfer the money under the threat of death, since in ch. 1 tbsp. 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation refers to an attack with the aim of stealing, and not about taking possession of someone else's property. In the decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 27, 2002, "On judicial practice in cases of theft, robbery and robbery," robbery is recommended to be considered completed from the moment of the attack in order to steal someone else's property (clause 6). Ivanov and Petrov are co-executors of the robbery, since each of them, in order to realize the joint intent, fulfilled part of the objective side of the crime: Ivanov expressed a threat to use violence dangerous to life or health, accompanying her with a demand for the immediate transfer of property; Petrov performed actions aimed at confiscating property - he was looking for money.

The robbery was committed by the guilty by a group of persons by prior conspiracy (two persons, before committing the crime, agreed to take possession of the Nikolayevs' money, took a sawn-off shotgun with them, Ivanov threatened Nikolaeva with a sawed-off shotgun, demanding money, Petrov was looking for money). In addition, there is another qualifying feature provided for in Part 2 of Art. 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, - the commission of a crime with the use of weapons or objects used as weapons. In the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 27, 2002 "On judicial practice in cases of theft, robbery and robbery", the courts are recommended in accordance with the Federal Law "On Weapons" and on the basis of an expert opinion to establish whether the object used during the attack is a weapon designed to hit a live or other target. The cut-off of a smooth-bore hunting rifle refers to a firearm designed to engage a live or other target. Both accomplices knew about the presence of a sawn-off shotgun in the group and intended to use it to intimidate the victim. It follows from the aforementioned decision that if a person only demonstrated a weapon, not intending to use it to inflict bodily harm, this qualifying feature is absent (paragraph 23). However, in our example, on the part of Ivanov, there was not just a demonstration of weapons, but also the actual use of its damaging properties in the process of further implementation of the objective side of the robbery, which led to the death of the victim. Consequently, we can impute the qualifying feature in question to Ivanov. Petrov's intention was only the threat of a sawn-off shotgun, and therefore this qualifying feature is not imputed to him.

In the actions of both perpetrators there is a qualifying feature from Part 3 of Art. 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - illegal entry into a home. The apartment of the Nikolaevs falls under the concept of a dwelling, which is given in the footnote to Art. 139 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in particular, for such a type of dwelling as dwelling, regardless of the form of ownership, included in the housing stock and suitable for permanent or temporary residence. Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 27, 2002 "On judicial practice in cases of theft, robbery and robbery" by illegal entry into a dwelling, premises or other storage means illegal, secret or open intrusion into them with the aim of committing theft, robbery or robbery (p. 18). In this case, it is important that the intent to steal occurs before penetration, as was the case in this case.

Finally, given that the perpetrators intended to seize the sum of 4 million rubles, it can be stated that their actions also contain a particularly qualifying sign of robbery, provided for in paragraph "b" of Part 4 of Art. 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, - committing robbery on an especially large scale. According to note 4 to art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, a particularly large amount in the articles of the chapter on crimes against property (except for the explicitly indicated exceptions) is the value of property in excess of one million rubles. Despite the fact that, judging by the wording of the law (clause "b", part 4 of article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), an especially large amount of theft does not refer to the purpose of the crime, but to the act itself, judicial practice does not recognize this particularly qualified composition of material and proceeds from the fact that the acts that fall under it, as well as the acts that form the main body, are over from the moment of the attack.

Thus, Ivanov's actions contain signs of the composition of a completed robbery with such qualifying circumstances as the commission of a crime by a group of persons by prior conspiracy, with the use of weapons, with illegal entry into a dwelling, on an especially large scale. Petrov's actions contain signs of the same corpus delicti with the same qualifying circumstances, with the exception of the sign “with the use of weapons”. Since in the actions of the perpetrators there are qualifying signs provided for in Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4 of Art. 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the part that establishes the most severe punishment is applied during qualification. In this case, it is part 4 of Art. 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. As a result, the actions of the perpetrators will be qualified under clause "b" of Part 4 of Art. 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; at the same time, the descriptive part of the verdict will list all the qualifying signs found by the court in their actions.

In the process of committing the robbery, Ivanov, in order to overcome the resistance of the victim, who was trying to prevent the seizure of property, shot her in the head with a sawn-off shotgun, thereby causing death. There are signs of murder in his actions (Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The intent to kill is seen from the totality of such circumstances as the direction of the perpetrator's actions to damage a vital organ (head) and the instrument of the crime (firearm). In accordance with the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 27, 2002 "On judicial practice in cases of theft, robbery and robbery" if a person commits the murder of a victim during a robbery, his deed should be classified under clause "z" Part 2 Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as under clause "c" part 4 of Art. 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (clause 22). At the same time, for the qualification of the offense from clause "h", part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation applies the sign of the conjugation of murder with robbery, since according to the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of January 27, 1999 (as amended on 03.12.2009) "On judicial practice in cases of murder" as associated with robbery, extortion or banditry follows qualify murder in the process of committing these crimes (paragraph 11). Ivanov's actions, expressed in the murder of Nikolayeva, can be regarded as an excess of the performer, since there was no agreement on this, judging by the terms of the task, between Ivanov and Petrov. This is also evidenced by the lack of joint action to take the victim's life. Thus, Ivanov's actions are subject to qualification under clause "h" part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, pp. "B", "c" part 4 of Art. 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

In addition, Ivanov must be held liable under Part 1 of Art. 222 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for illegal acquisition, carrying and storage of firearms (sawn-off shotguns). The concepts of illegal acquisition, carrying, storage of weapons are disclosed in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 03.12.2002 (as amended on 03.12.2013) “On judicial practice in cases of theft, extortion and illegal circulation of weapons, ammunition, explosives and explosives. devices ". The illegal acquisition of weapons in this case took place in the form of a purchase.

The final qualification of the actions of the perpetrators is as follows: Ivanov's actions must be qualified under clause "h", Part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, pp. "B", "c" part 4 of Art. 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, part 1 of Art. 222 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; Petrov's actions are subject to qualification under clause "b" of Part 2 of Art. 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.