On Doctrines Of Concrete Accord

In the theory of criminal law and judicial practice, mistake of fact is always important and difficult issues. Mistake of fact is that the subjective understanding is inconsistent with the objective fact. In order to resolve factual errors there are the Doctrines of Concrete Accord, the Doctrines of legally Prescribed Accord and the Doctrines of Abstract Accord. In the three theories, the Doctrines of Concrete Accord is the best way to embody the spirit of jurisprudence and the principle of responsibility, but theorists rarely do some research on Doctrines of Concrete Accord, which has led to many scholars unfamiliar with the specific connotation and the theoretical ideas of the Doctrines of Concrete Accord, even misunderstanding its viewpoint in resolving other mistake facts. Therefore, this paper investigates the Doctrines of Concrete Accord on the premise that the Doctrines of legally Prescribed Accord and the Doctrines of Abstract Accord are introduced and reviewed by defining the scope of factual errors. In addition, this paper focuses on the basis of connotation of the Doctrines of Concrete Accord and proposes a modification of the common Doctrines of Accord by introducing the Doctrines of Concrete Accord to resolve specific claims of mistake fact. At last, the modification is applied to all factual errors. The full text is divided into four parts:The first part introduces the Doctrines of Concrete Accord. When Professor Makino was solving factual errors, he started talking about the concept of the theory. Therefore, it will be able to define the scope of factual errors identified in line with the Doctrines of Concrete Accord’s scope. After determining the scope of the application, the Doctrines of legally Prescribed Accord and the Doctrines of Abstract Accord were introduced and evaluated. It is noted that both two cannot avoid theoretical errors by modifying and then the Doctrines of Concrete Accord is introduced. Through the introduction of theoretical basis and deliberately proposition of the Doctrines of Concrete Accord, there is a solid theoretical premise.The second part describes the specific claims and defects in Doctrines of Concrete Accord. This paper describes the principles of solving factual errors based on the same constituent elements and factual errors based on the different constituent elements by the “Equivalence of Legal Interest” principle. It is indicated that if we put forward too much emphasis on “Equivalence of Legal Interest” principle, it will indulge crime. If we apply the different principles between the same elements factual errors and the different elements factual errors, it will cause chaos theory itself and contradictions.The third section presents the specific amendments on Doctrines of Concrete Accord. On one hand the legal interest subject will be clearly defined. The definition of the legal interest subject is extended from subject of possession to the subject who holds the things steadily and has a range of control. It is proposed that the property crime of obtained type don’t need to focus on “the legal interest subject of individualization”, and as for the property crime of destruction type, it is necessary to determine by cases whether focus on "the legal interest subject of individualization" and other viewpoints. On the other hand,the intentional concept of the Doctrines of Concrete Accord is proposed and is applied to all of the factual errors.The fourth section is that point of the amendment is applied to all the factual errors. Firstly, responding to the point of view criticizing the Doctrines of Concrete Accord used to solve the attack errors. Secondly, it is proposed that intentional establishment of elimination should be identified by cases when the Doctrines of Concrete Accord resolves object errors and causal errors. Finally, it is noted that the factual errors based on the different constituent elements focus on commonality of legal interest and commonality of behavior but also should focus on “legal interest subject identity”, in addition it is necessary to make sure intentional establishment of elimination in certain circumstances. Through the use of such an amendment, the viewpoints of Doctrines of Concrete Accord dealing with all the specific factual errors are unified.