What is the meaning of criminal nature in concrete factual error and abstract factual error in cri

It should be understood as the nature of the crime or the essence of the crime, but in fact it is quite abstract, and the distinction between the nature of the crime and the object is a little larger than the scope of the direct object. For example, the right to life and the right to physical health are two different objects in intentional homicide and intentional injury, but the two criminal acts are of the same nature. In general, the nature of the crime is the same, that is, an abstract understanding of the object of the crime belongs to the same category.

But it is different from the same kind of object).

I'm probably saying this, I hope it can help me understand, if you want a clear definition, you should go to the book to find **.

1. Misunderstanding of specific facts.

1. Object error: A wants to kill B, mistakenly thinks C is B, and raises a gun to kill. (B was not at the scene) specifically agrees: Evaluation: B is not guilty, and C is guilty of intentional homicide.

Statutory conformity: Evaluation: B is not guilty, and C is guilty of intentional homicide.

2. Strike error: A wants to kill B, and beats C next to B to death. (B is on site).

Specifically, it is consistent with the following statement: Evaluation: Attempted intentional homicide against B and negligent death by negligence against C constitute the crime of intentional homicide.

Statutory Compliance Theory: Evaluation: B is not guilty, and it is directly determined that the crime of intentional homicide is constituted against C.

2. Misunderstanding of abstract facts.

1. The object is wrong, A wants to kill B, and the cultural relics are damaged as B. (B was not at the scene) evaluation: B is not guilty, which directly constitutes the crime of negligent damage to cultural relics.

2. The blow is wrong, A wants to kill B, and the cultural relics around him are damaged. (B at the scene) 3. The nature of the crime is the nature of the crime, and the nature of the crime. China's criminal punishment is based on the basic principle of criminal law, that the severity of the punishment should be commensurate with the severity of the crime, that the punishment should be commensurate with the crime, and that the punishment should be appropriate to the crime.

It is a necessary part of the conviction process to conduct the analysis of the nature of the crime in the judicial and judicial procedures, and the conformity of the nature of the crime is the proper meaning of the nature of the crime. The essence of crime exists in the composition of the crime, and is mainly expressed by the object of the crime. The nature of the crime can be subdivided into two elements, the nature of the crime and the amount of the crime, which are the original elements of conviction and sentencing, respectively.

The Criminal Law generally holds that the perpetrator's subjective misunderstanding of the facts is divided into specific misunderstanding of facts and abstract misunderstanding of facts.

Specific errors in the understanding of facts refer to the fact that although the facts known by the perpetrator and the facts actually occurred, although they are inconsistent, they do not exceed the scope of the unified crime composition, that is, the perpetrator only has an error in the understanding of the facts within the scope of a certain crime, so it is also called an error in the composition of the crime.

As for the misunderstanding of specific facts, there are theoretically controversies between the theory of specific conformity and the theory of statutory conformity.

The theory of concrete conformity holds that an intentional completed offense can only be established when the facts actually occurring in the domain of facts recognized by the perpetrator are concretely consistent; On the other hand, the doctrine of statutory compliance holds that as long as the facts known to the perpetrator and the facts actually occurred are consistent within the scope of the crime, an intentional res judicata is established.

Misunderstanding in the Criminal Law refers to the perpetrator's incorrect understanding of the legal significance of his or her own acts, or his understanding of the relevant objective facts that does not conform to the truth. Misunderstandings include misunderstandings of law and facts. Misunderstanding of the law refers to a misunderstanding of the legal nature or meaning of one's own act when the actor consciously carries out an act.

Misunderstanding of the law refers to a misunderstanding of the legal nature or meaning of one's own act when the actor consciously carries out an act. It is generally believed that there are the following three types of emotional hunger: First, the perpetrator mistakenly believes that he has committed a criminal act prohibited by the criminal law, but in fact the act is not a criminal act prohibited by the criminal law.

Second, the perpetrator mistakenly believes that the act he has committed is not a criminal act as defined by the criminal law, but in fact the act is a criminal act prescribed by the criminal law. Third, the perpetrator has an incorrect understanding of the criminal act he has committed in terms of the charges, number of crimes, sentencing, and so on. Errors in factual cognition are divided into concrete factual misperceptions and abstract factual misperceptions.

"Errors in the understanding of specific facts" refers to the fact that although the facts recognized by the perpetrator are inconsistent with the facts that actually occurred, they do not exceed the scope of the same crime, including errors in the target, mistakes, errors in causal relationships, and so forth. "Misunderstanding of abstract facts" refers to the fact that the perpetrator knows the facts and the facts that actually occurred, respectively, belong to different criminal compositions, and according to the doctrine of statutory compliance, the crime shall be determined within the scope of subjective and objective unity for the misunderstanding of abstract facts. Article 14 of the Criminal Law stipulates that a person who clearly knows that his or her conduct will have a result that is harmful to society, and hopes or allows such a result to occur, thus constituting a crime, is guilty of an intentional crime.

Intentional crimes shall be criminally responsible.

1 is correct, but the specific statement is wrong, it should be an attempt to kill an intentional homicide against B and a completed manslaughter for C.

2 is correct.

Abstract recognition error.

1. The object is wrong, A wants to kill B, and the cultural relics are damaged as B The evaluation of B is an attempt to kill intentional homicide, but the destruction of cultural relics directly constitutes the crime of negligent damage to cultural relics, and it should be an attempt to commit intentional homicide according to the subjective desire to commit a felony, while an objective misdemeanor is committed according to the competition.

That's my understanding, I don't know if it's right or not.

In other words, "wrong object" means "wrong person"; To "hit the wrong person" is to "hit the wrong person". Is it okay to say that?

Revision (personal opinion): 1. Misunderstanding of specific facts.

1. Object error: I want to kill B, mistakenly think that C is B, and raise a gun to kill. (B is not present at the scene, and the exclusion of a violation is not limited to legal circumstances).

Useless theories, what you wrote are too abstract, study them yourself.

Is there any subjective intent on Party B in the object error?

Misunderstanding of facts in criminal law refers to the inconsistency between the facts that the actor knows or wants and the actual situation or objective facts, and refers to the actor's incorrect understanding of the facts. A misunderstanding of the facts and circumstances constituting the elements of the crime will affect the criminal responsibility of the perpetrator; An erroneous understanding of the facts and circumstances other than the constituent elements of the crime does not affect the criminal responsibility of the perpetrator.

Errors in the understanding of facts are divided into concrete errors in the understanding of facts and errors in the understanding of abstract facts. Errors in the understanding of specific facts, where the perpetrator only made an error in the understanding of the facts within the scope of a certain crime, are called errors within the composition of the same crime; Errors in the understanding of abstract facts, where the facts recognized and occurred by the perpetrator span different criminal compositions, is called an error between different criminal compositions.

The so-called erroneous understanding of facts, that is, the fact that the actor knows or intends is inconsistent with the actual situation or objective facts, refers to the actor's incorrect understanding of the facts and circumstances related to his own conduct.

Whether such an error affects the criminal responsibility of the perpetrator should be handled differently according to different circumstances: if it is a misunderstanding of the facts and circumstances constituting the elements of the crime, it will affect the criminal responsibility of the perpetrator; If there is an error in the understanding of the facts and circumstances other than the constituent elements of the crime, the criminal responsibility of the perpetrator is not affected.

Subjective misdemeanors, objective felonies. If the objective facts include the objective facts of a misdemeanor in the legal evaluation, it shall be handled as the completion of the intentional crime of the misdemeanor. In this case, it is impossible to establish the completion of the intentional crime of the felony, because the perpetrator did not recognize the objective facts of the felony (but the fact of the felony may be established as a crime of negligence, which is an imaginary joint offense).

Subjective felony, objective misdemeanor. If subjective intent includes the intent of a misdemeanor in the legal evaluation, then there are two ways to deal with this situation according to the specific circumstances of the case:

1) When there is an act of committing a felony in the case and it leads to a dangerous result of a felony, an attempted felony is established, and a misdemeanor (completed) is also established, and it is determined that it is an imaginary joint offense of an attempted felony and a misdemeanor (completed), and one of the felonies is to be punished.

2) If there is no act of committing a felony and there is no dangerous result of a felony, then there is no attempt to commit a felony, only a misdemeanor (completed).