On Cognitional Falsity In The Course Of Purposive Crimes Of The Criminal Law

According to the principle of the consistency of the subjectivity and the objectivity in China's criminal law, the actor must conduct the crime and then take the consequence of the criminal obligation, whereas the cognitional falsity would handle the formation of the crime and influence the cognition of the actor's penal obligations. Therefore this theory has been paid much attention by China's penal theoretical community.Through investigating some foreign countries'standing criminal laws, we could conclude that the cognitional falsity has been assured by many countries'penal legislations. Though this theory has only been associated in the law drafts in China, it has not been incarnated in the actual law-makings, but materialized in various theoretical colloquiums. Moreover, the trace of academic transplant is obvious, so there is a prodigious disjunction in the criminal constitution theory in China. Hence, it is necessary to research it according to the criminal constitution theory in China.Before making the definition of the cognitional falsity, the most important is to define the content of the cognition (object). Form the purposive definition in the penal code combing the logical discursion, we could draw a conclusion that the sphere of cognition must be related to the facts of the criminal constitutional items. However, in terms of the four important items of the criminal constitution in China, the content of the cognition is very complex and has great divergence in theory. On the other hand, cognitional single item theory (only including the facts of the crime) is more feasible. According to the cognitional single item, there will be a great divergence in the character which should be known by the actor whether the behavior belongs to the social bane or illegality code. In the author's point of view, the consequence of comparative analysis can prove that due to the factors of the abstraction and the indetermination in social bane, the actor's cognition should not be defined as the object...