Commentary to Art. 24 Criminal Code
1. Part 1 establishes two forms of guilt known to criminal law - intent and negligence. Their content is disclosed accordingly in Art. 25 and 26 of the Criminal Code.
2. The provision of part 2 must be understood as follows. If an article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code indicates negligence as a form of guilt, the corresponding crime is committed only through negligence (for example, Articles 118, 168 of the Criminal Code). On the contrary, the legislator’s silence about the form of guilt allows the commission of the corresponding crime both intentionally and through negligence (for example, Articles 251, 283 of the Criminal Code), unless the conclusion about the intentional commission of a crime follows from the meaning of the criminal law (for example, Articles 120, 285 UK).
3. In a number of cases, the motive and purpose of committing a crime acquire legal significance.
The motive for a crime is the internal motivations determined by needs and interests that make a person determined to commit a crime and by which he is guided when committing it.
The purpose of a crime is related to the future and represents a mental model of the result that a person strives to achieve when committing a crime.
Motive and purpose, which have criminal legal significance, can only occur in intentional crimes and perform one of three functions.
Firstly, motive and purpose may be a crime-forming feature introduced by the legislator into the crime in order to distinguish a criminal act from a non-criminal one (for example, Articles 153, 154, 285 of the Criminal Code).
Secondly, motive and purpose may be qualifying features of the relevant crime (for example, clauses “h” - “m”, part 2 of article 105 of the Criminal Code).
Thirdly, motive and purpose can distinguish between related crimes (for example, a terrorist act (Article 205 of the Criminal Code) differs from sabotage (Article 281 of the Criminal Code) in terms of the goals of the perpetrator’s actions).
4. In a number of cases, a person’s mistake acquires criminal legal significance, i.e. his misconception regarding the legal or factual side of the act being committed (legal and factual errors, respectively).
A legal error is a person’s misconception about the legal characteristics or legal consequences of an act. Such incorrect misconceptions (for example, ignorance of the criminality of actions, an error in the idea of possible punishment, incorrect classification of an act as criminal, although it is not) do not affect the criminal liability and punishment of the subject.
A factual error involves a person’s misconception about the actual circumstances of the act being committed. Only an error associated with the elements of a crime can have criminal legal significance; a person’s misconception regarding factual circumstances not related to the latter has no legal significance.
There are two types of factual error: error-ignorance and error-misconception.
In case of an error of ignorance, the person does not know a legally significant circumstance that influences the qualification (for example, the pregnancy of the victim in a murder, the nature of the stolen item as a narcotic drug). In this case, what was done either does not form a crime at all (if the unknown circumstance is a constructive sign of the main element of the crime), or is qualified without imputing the corresponding sign to the person (i.e., for example, not under paragraph “g” of Part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code, and according to Part 1 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code). However, if an unknown fact should and could have been known to a person and the criminal law establishes liability for the same act committed through negligence, the person may be held liable for a crime committed through negligence (for example, in imaginary defense or for causing death by negligence a person mistaken for an animal in the dark).
In case of a mistake-misconception, a person mistakenly believes about the existence of a legally significant circumstance that influences qualifications (for example, he believes that the victim of rape is underage, or that the stolen weapon is in good working order). In this case, the act is qualified as an attempted crime with the appropriate attribute, i.e. as an attempted crime that would have been committed if the facts were as the person assumes them to exist (for example, under Part 3 of Article 30 and paragraph “a” of Part 3 of Article 131 of the Criminal Code, Part 3 of Article 30 and Article 226 of the Criminal Code).
Second commentary to Art. 24 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. Guilt is a person’s mental attitude towards the socially dangerous act he commits and its socially dangerous consequences.
2. Together with the motive and purpose, guilt forms the subjective side of the crime. It is a mandatory feature of the subjective side, while motive and purpose are its optional features: they are included by the legislator in not all, but only some crimes.
3. The elements of guilt as a mental attitude are consciousness and will, which together form its content. Thus, guilt is characterized by two components: intellectual and volitional. Various combinations of intellectual and volitional elements provided for by law form two forms of guilt - intent and negligence.
4. An act committed only through negligence is recognized as a crime only in the case when it is specifically provided for by the relevant article of the Special Part of the Code. If there is no such indication in the law, then the committed act can be a crime both with an intentional and careless form of guilt (for example, Part 1 of Article 122 of the Criminal Code - infecting another person with a venereal disease).
Judicial practice under Article 24 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Cassation ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 23, 2018 N 46-O18-1
Contrary to the arguments of the lawyer in the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, the concept of a particularly serious crime was provided for in part one of Art. 24, which was expressly stated in this provision of the law. The crime committed by Demakov, provided for in paragraphs “a”, “d”, “e” of Art., also fell under this category of crimes. 102 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, for which he was convicted by the verdict of April 29, 1996, since the sanction of this article of the Criminal Code provided for punishment both in the form of imprisonment for a term of over 10 years, and in the form of a more severe punishment. Therefore, the reference in the verdict to Part 1 of Art. Criminal Code of the RSFSR and Art. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is lawful and complies with the requirements for the operation of the law in time, including the Federal Law “On the Enforcement of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation” of 1996, while the presence in Demakov’s actions of a particularly dangerous recidivism of crimes is correctly established in accordance with paragraph “b” » part 3 art. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The court also correctly determined the type of correctional institution, that is, a special regime correctional colony (clause “g” of Part 1 of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 28, 2018 N 78-APU18-15
The court correctly determined V.V. Banadykova. type of recidivism of crimes and the regime of the correctional colony: by virtue of paragraph “b” of Part 3 of Art. According to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, if a person was previously convicted of a particularly serious crime and again committed a particularly serious crime, then his actions constitute a particularly dangerous relapse of crimes; according to Art. Criminal Code of the RSFSR Art. 102 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, according to which Banadykov V.V. was convicted by a verdict dated September 6, 1997, which provided for criminal liability for committing a particularly serious crime; part 5 art. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation establishes that intentional acts are recognized as especially serious crimes, the commission of which is punishable by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the form of imprisonment for a term of over ten years or a more severe punishment.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 13, 2018 N 4-APU18-41
By virtue of Part 1 of Art. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation recognizes a person guilty of a crime who committed an act intentionally or through negligence. According to Art. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation recognizes an act committed with direct or indirect intent as a crime committed intentionally (Part 1); a crime is recognized as committed with direct intent if the person was aware of the social danger of his actions (inaction), foresaw the possibility or inevitability of socially dangerous consequences and desired their occurrence (Part 2); a crime is recognized as committed with indirect intent if the person was aware of the social danger of his actions (inaction), foresaw the possibility of socially dangerous consequences, did not want, but consciously allowed these consequences or was indifferent to them (clause 3).
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Military Personnel of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 10, 2019 N 205-APU18-33
At the same time, taking into account the nature and degree of public danger committed by Daudov B.B. crimes, the circumstances of the case, as well as analyzing the provisions of Art. Art. , , 213.3 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, art. Art. , , of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the court came to the correct conclusion about the impossibility of releasing the convicted person from criminal liability under Part 2 of Art. 209 and part 3 of Art. 205 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 3, 2019 N 33-APU19-21sp
Taking into account these circumstances, Dimjlis is subject to acquittal under clauses “a”, “b”, part 4 of Art. 229.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation due to the lack of corpus delicti in his actions (clause 2 of Part 1 of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). In connection with the violations of the law committed by the court, he asks that the verdict be quashed and that the case be transferred for a new trial to the court of first instance from the stage of preparation for the trial.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 14, 2019 N 78-APU19-4
According to the criminal law, a person who committed an act intentionally or through negligence is considered guilty of a crime (Part 1 of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation); a crime committed intentionally is an act committed with direct or indirect intent (Part 1 of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation); a crime is recognized as committed with direct intent if the person was aware of the social danger of his actions (inaction), foresaw the possibility or inevitability of socially dangerous consequences and desired their occurrence (Part 2 of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation); a crime is recognized as committed with indirect intent if the person was aware of the social danger of his actions (inaction), foresaw the possibility of socially dangerous consequences, did not want, but consciously allowed these consequences or was indifferent to them (Part 3 of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), a crime, committed through negligence is an act committed through frivolity or negligence (Part 1 of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation); a crime is recognized as committed due to frivolity if the person foresaw the possibility of socially dangerous consequences of his actions (inaction), but without sufficient grounds for this he arrogantly counted on preventing these consequences (Part 2 of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation); a crime is recognized as committed through negligence if a person did not foresee the possibility of socially dangerous consequences of his actions (inaction), although with the necessary care and forethought he should and could have foreseen these consequences (Part 3 of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
Decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 15, 2017 N AKPI17-630
At the time the decision was made by the President of the Russian Federation, the norm of Part 1 of Article of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR was in force (as amended by the Law of the Russian Federation of December 17, 1992 N 4123-1 “On Amendments to the Article of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR”), according to which, when replacing by pardon The death penalty by imprisonment can be imposed for life.
Decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 19, 2017 N AKPI17-743
At the time the decision was made by the President of the Russian Federation, the norm of Part 1 of Article of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR was in force (as amended by the Law of the Russian Federation of December 17, 1992 N 4123-I “On Amendments to the Article of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR”), according to which when replacing by pardon The death penalty by imprisonment can be imposed for life.
Appeal ruling of the Appeal Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 12, 2017 N APL17-448
At the time of the adoption of the contested act by the President of the Russian Federation, the norm of Part 1 of Article of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR was in force (as amended by the Law of the Russian Federation of December 17, 1992 N 4123-I “On Amendments to the Article of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR”), which provided that when replacing In order to pardon the death penalty by imprisonment, it can be imposed for life.
Appeal ruling of the Appeal Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 28, 2020 N APL19-518
In support of the application, the administrative plaintiff indicated that replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment is a violation of articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Article 121.8 of the Constitution of the RSFSR, Part 1 of Article 15, Part 1 of Article 54, Part 3 of Article 90 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Part 1 of Article 8 Law of the RSFSR of April 24, 1991 N 1098-I “On the President of the RSFSR”. In his opinion, the Decree is based on the new version of the Law of the Russian Federation of December 17, 1992 N 4123-I “On Amendments to the Article of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR”, which entered into force on January 6, 1993, which worsened its position compared to the previous one the version of the law in force at the time he committed the crime in 1990, which provided for the replacement of the death penalty by pardon with imprisonment for a term of more than 15 years, but not more than 20 years.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 29, 2018 N 51-APU18-4
Believes that the court incorrectly applied the norms of criminal law in terms of determining the form of guilt and motives of A.N. Tsapyuk. according to Part 2 of Art. 210 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Part 3 of Art. , clause “g”, part 2 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, incorrectly applied the above articles of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, articles , , of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
