Lapping Of Legal Provisions Practice Problems And Solutions

Coincidence of Articles theory plays an important role in criminal law theory.Lapping of Legal Provisions on the theory of criminal theories conducted in-depthstudies and some results. However, in general terms to the special provisions for thecut blocking problem, Lapping of Legal Provisions and imagination competingsub-sector, as well as the basic principles applicable Lapping of Legal Provisions andother issues, he was then unable to reach consensus on the need for further in-depthdiscussion. Meanwhile, the clauses of concurrence ambiguity problem in theory, leadto justice can not accurately handle this complex issue Lapping of Legal Provisionscaseload process. So, whether it is at the theoretical level or judicial practice has madethe necessary depth to explore this issue.In this paper, a comprehensive sort practice problem on Lapping of Legal Provisionsfor special terms that the general terms of blocking functional problems, thedifference between the issue of competing clauses of concurrence and imagination, aheavy penalty clauses of concurrence from the principle of existing research resultsbasis, were further discussed and proposed solutions.Paper is divided into the following sections:PartⅠ:first the general terms for special provisions for plugging functions relatedcase triggered a blocking function for reflection, and then summarized and analyzedin general terms to the special provisions of the practice of blocking the function ofthe practice and theory of controversy, in-depth demonstration general terms do nothave the reason to block the function. I believe that in general terms the specialprovisions for sealing against the basic principles of statutory crimes, ignoring thepurpose of lawmakers set up special provisions.PartⅡ:first problem Coincidence of Articles imagine competing confused withrelevant case triggered summary Coincidence of Articles competing with distinctionin theory imagine different views, and practice different approach to finalize methodimagine competing with the distinction of competing standards. I believe that there isonly inclusive cross correlation relationship between clauses of concurrence, betweenthe statute does not constitute Lapping of Legal Provisions. We only noticed thiscrucial distinction between the two can be a good grasp of the boundaries.Part III:.first clauses of concurrence in question method is superior to the light weightof the relevant case law lead to further summarize the clauses of concurrence from theapplicability of the theory of a heavy dispute the principle that punishment andnegative to say definitely say. Finally say for sure defects and should not beapplicable to the clauses of concurrence raise my own opinion from a heavypunishment principle. From the legislative intent of view, from a heavy punishmentdoes not exist within the range of options lawmakers authorized, if the judiciary inparticular because the penalty provisions of the lighter and heavier in general termsapplicable choice, is the legislative power of the transgression.