Factual Mistakes In Criminal Law And Their Handling

The activity of people is subjective and objective interaction(results), when the subjective and objective conditions deviate, people will have a wrong understanding. Of course, this kind of mistake in understanding and transforming the world in the process, inevitably, some is quite necessary,after all the wrong is the right start. However, people mistake in activity in some can be avoid and correct, some up to be condemned by morality and public opinions, tough s a n c t i o n s b u t s o m e a r e a f f e c t e d b y t h e c r i m i n a l l a w, b e c a u s e the error behavior violated the criminal law protection of the state,the collective interests and the legitimate interests. However, how to deal with such a not only violate the criminal law and the emergence of subjective and objective error behavior is not uniform? This became a problem, so the research on the wrong understanding of criminal law on criminal law not only has theoretical s i g n i f i c a n c e b u t a l s o h a s t h e v a l u e o f j u d i c i a l p r a c t i c e.In many criminal cases, mistake of law case is not much, and on the basis of "ignorance of the law is not exempt" principle to get very good solution. It is difficult to solve, the debate of the larger cases mainly concentrated on the cognition errors of facts of cases. Cognition errors of facts is the seat of the error of cognition of the difficulties in theory of criminal law, also is in the judicial practice to solve the controversial problem. Because of China’s "criminal law"(Fourteenth) insist on the unification of subjectivity and objectivity in of intentional crime, and on the cognition e r r o r s o f f a c t s i s n o t c l e a r l y d e f i n e d, s o i n r e a l l i f e w e w i l l encounter some cases such behavior of people a theft of a general property for the purpose, in the train station while asleep stole the passengers B a password box, open only to find there was only a pistol; behavior person C this to trafficking in ch i l d r e n, re s u l t s in na p p i n g pr o c e s s mi s t a k e n l y su f f e r s fr o m dwarfism women abduction then sold; another example of behavior intention of killing D E, then in the prior to ambush good place aimed the gun at the E, but due to their previous never practice marksmanship, in the shooting result of their own off target, hit the aside and e chat acquaintances and so do some cognition errors of facts of the case. In dealing with these cases, according to the criminal law and criminal law scholars advocated the most subjective and objectiveconsistent principle, in practice because of the "subjective" and "objective" and some other key factors in understanding can’t reach an agreement, so from the subjective and objective way to solve in the criminal law of the unity of the fact error problem seems to be difficult to draw the desired conclusion. So in recent years, Chinese scholars began to continue to introduce the theory of the western criminal law theory, and theory of feasibility analysis of Chinese style, with period according to the reality of our country to promote and apply.Processing of western criminal law theory about the fact error problem,always have a statutory compliance with said, the specific conformation of opposites of the three. Because the theory of opposites, so in dealing with this problem is also controversial.From our country criminal law fourteenth can be seen, the lack of a wrong understanding on the facts of China’s legislation, no plus in academic circles,this kind of problems in judicial practice departments without compliance. Therefore, to study and explore the fact error problem becomes more and more important, not only of great theoretical significance,but also has great practical value. In this paper, in the two major law system sand our country criminal law educational world of fact cognitional error overview as the foundation, through to the doctrine of legally prescribed accord with concrete meet the analysis and comparison of said, and will be explained both into the concrete cases, draw the statutory compliance with said more reasonable conclusion certain. Then from the criminal law of our country deliberately based on the regulations, a further discuss deliberately wrong cognition of relationship with the fact that the cognition errors of facts.Whether or not a certain resistance deliberately, and identify and compensate for the lack of statutory compliance with said. This on the fact cognitional error problem ruled, and on this basis of imputation. The final solution in separate crime fact error problem and the common crime in fact error more difficult problem.