Those are all included in the theory of error in criminal law

Errors in criminal law contain two elements:

The first is a person who has the ability to recognize and control as a subject;

The second is the objective aspect that can be recognized by the subject. From the perspective of the relationship between philosophical practice and epistemology, the subject's cognition is an active reflection of the object on the basis of practice, and the object is the object to which the practice and cognitive activities are directed, and it is the aspect of objective things other than the subject.

There are three types of errors in criminal law: errors regarding the social harmfulness of the act, errors about the circumstances that constitute the constituent elements of the crime, errors of law or errors of law.

1. The object has a wrong understanding. In the course of an intentional crime, the perpetrator's intended target of harm is inconsistent with the actual target of Li Bu's harm, but the legal nature is the same;

1) This situation is called "object error" or "specific fact error". It is also known as an error between objects of the same legal nature, or "errors of the same kind of objects";

2) The basis for judging whether the legal nature of the objects is the same: whether they belong to the same legal provisions;

3) The main point of the evaluation is the "statutory compliance theory": usually the actor A directly bears intentional responsibility for the death of C. That is, it is directly determined that A has committed the crime of intentional homicide;

2. The object is wrong. In the course of an intentional crime, the perpetrator's intended target and the actual target are not only factually inconsistent, but also inconsistent in legal nature;

3. Wrong methods or means refers to situations where the perpetrator makes a mistake in using criminal methods or tools, so that the crime is not successful. It may be found that the perpetrator did not succeed for reasons other than the wrong will of the method or tool, and it is to be handled as an intentional attempt to commit a crime;

4. Errors in causality. Errors in causation that occur in the course of an intentional crime. There are three scenarios:

1) There is no result, and the result is thought to have occurred, which constitutes an attempt to commit a crime;

2) a certain result has occurred, and the perpetrator believes that it did not happen;

3) The result did happen, and the perpetrator recognized it, but there was a misunderstanding of the cause of the result.

Legal basis: Article 14 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China.

Intentional crime] Intentional crime is committed when one clearly knows that one's conduct will have a result that is harmful to society, and hopes that the base will be or allows such a result to occur, thus constituting a crime.

Those who commit intentional crimes shall bear criminal responsibility.

Misunderstanding in criminal law refers to the perpetrator's subjective misunderstanding of the legal nature of his conduct and the relevant facts. Theoretically, errors in criminal law can generally be divided into two categories: legal errors and factual errors.

Misunderstanding of law refers to the perpetrator's erroneous understanding of whether his or her conduct constitutes a crime in law, what kind of crime it constitutes or what punishment it should receive.

Legal Analysis: Misunderstanding in criminal law refers to the subjective misunderstanding of the legal nature of one's conduct and the relevant facts and circumstances of the perpetrator. Cognitive errors in criminal law can generally be theoretically divided into two categories:

Misunderstanding of the law and misunderstanding of facts is erroneous. Misunderstanding of law refers to the perpetrator's erroneous understanding of whether his or her conduct constitutes a crime in law, what kind of crime it constitutes or what punishment he should receive.

Answer]: Misunderstanding of law refers to the perpetrator's incorrect understanding of whether his behavior constitutes a crime in terms of the law, what kind of crime it constitutes or what kind of criminal punishment it should receive: There are three situations of misunderstanding of law:

1) Hypothetical non-sin. The act is a crime under the law, and the perpetrator mistakenly believes that it is not a crime: in principle, this lack of ethnic group does not exclude criminal responsibility, but the criminal responsibility can be mitigated as appropriate, because after all, the perpetrator did not do it knowing that he could not do it, and the subjective malice is less.

2) Hypothetical crimes. The perpetrator's conduct does not constitute a crime in law, and the perpetrator mistakenly believes that it constitutes a crime. The fact that a person who commits a crime of misconduct does not change the legal nature of his act and does not establish a crime.

3) Misunderstanding of the crime and the severity of the crime. This kind of misunderstanding of the law does not involve whether the perpetrator has an awareness of illegality, does not affect the existence and magnitude of the crime, and does not affect the conviction and sentencing.

Misunderstanding of law refers to an misunderstanding of the legal nature or meaning of one's own conduct when the actor consciously carries out a certain act. It is generally believed that there are the following three situations: 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 under the criminal law, but in fact the act is a criminal act under the criminal law. Third, the perpetrator has an incorrect understanding of the criminal conduct he has committed in terms of the charges, number of crimes, sentencing, and so forth. Errors in the understanding of facts are divided into concrete errors in the understanding of facts and errors in the understanding of abstract facts.

"Specific errors in understanding facts" refers to the fact that although the perpetrator's knowledge of the facts is inconsistent with the facts that actually occurred, they do not exceed the scope of the same crime, including errors in the target, strikes, and causal relationships. "Misunderstanding of abstract facts" refers to the fact that the facts recognized by the perpetrator and the facts that occurred in reality belong to different criminal compositions, and according to the statutory conformity with the doctrine of large cong emptiness, the crime shall be determined within the scope of subjective and objective unity for the misunderstanding of abstract facts. According to Article 14 of the Criminal Law, an error in the criminal law refers to the perpetrator's incorrect understanding of the legal significance of his or her own act, or his understanding of the relevant objective facts that does not conform to the truth.

Misunderstandings include misunderstandings of law and facts.