Signs of innocent harm. Russian criminal law

Innocent infliction of harm occurs in cases where a person who meets all the characteristics of a subject, by his act fulfilled the objective side of a crime, actually caused harm, but he was not guilty. Such situations in criminal law are usually called “incident” or “case”. Criminal liability does not arise regardless of the nature and magnitude of the harm caused. Before the adoption of the 1996 Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, there was no special rule on innocent causing of harm. The theory of criminal law usually associated innocent causing of harm with the absence of one of the criteria of criminal negligence. Currently, the signs of innocent causing of harm are described in Article 28 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for several options. Criminal law course. A common part. Volume 1: The doctrine of crime / Ed. N.F. Kuznetsova I.M. Tyazhkova. M., 2012. p. 306.

1. An act is considered committed innocently if the person who committed it did not realize and, due to the circumstances of the case, could not realize the social danger of his actions (inaction). This type of innocent infliction of harm can occur when a person actually commits the objective side of crimes that involve an intentional form of guilt, which predetermines its identification as an independent type. The most typical form of an incident of this type may be cases where a person who actually carried out the objective side of a deliberate crime was misled by another person (persons), did not realize that he was performing the objective side of a crime, and acted only as an instrument of crime in the hands of this person (persons). Such cases can be very widespread. As an illustration of this type of incident, the following situation can be cited: A. turns to P. at the airport with a request to transfer a package of medicines for a sick relative to another city. It later turns out that the bag contained drugs. In such cases, one of the varieties of indirect harm occurs. Bringing P. to criminal responsibility for illegal transportation of drugs will mean nothing more than objective imputation, which is directly prohibited by law.

In other cases, an incident of this type may occur when the person who objectively caused the harm was not aware of the nature of the object (or properties of the object) of the harm caused. The press published a case in which a police officer, who fell asleep in the video room of a railway station, had a suitcase with things stolen, among which was his service weapon (AK-SU assault rifle). Is it possible for the thief of this weapon, who actually fulfilled the objective side of the crime provided for in Article 226 of the Criminal Code, to be prosecuted under this article? The answer to this question must undoubtedly be negative. Let us emphasize once again that this type of incident is typical for the implementation of the objective side of intentional crimes, since only when they are committed the law provides for awareness of the social danger of the act. With other types of guilt, such awareness is not required.

2. The second type of innocent infliction of harm occurs when a person “did not foresee the possibility of socially dangerous consequences and, due to the circumstances of the case, should not or could not have foreseen them.” Criminal law course. A common part. Volume 1.: The doctrine of crime / Ed. N.F. Kuznetsova and I.M. Tyazhkova. M., 2012.S. 309. This type of case is most developed in the science of criminal law and is best known to practitioners, since it is closely related to the guilt of criminal negligence. If, when establishing it, one of its criteria is missing - objective or subjective, which were discussed above, then the fact of innocent causing of harm should also be stated. Thus, if, as a result of the investigation, it is determined that the person did not violate any precautionary rules, it should be recognized that there is a “gap” in these rules that do not provide for this situation. It is no coincidence that instructions for the activities of persons in hazardous professions (pilots, miners, rescuers, etc.) are constantly being improved taking into account previous mistakes. The absence of an objective criterion of criminal negligence is in many cases stated in connection with the fault of the victim himself. For example, a drunk man suddenly walked onto the road and was hit by a car whose driver had not violated any rules.

This type of case, in the absence of only a subjective criterion, is rare in judicial practice. In such cases, a person cannot foresee the consequences due to his individual qualities or the characteristics of the situation in which the harm was caused.

3. The third type of innocent causing of harm is not provided for in Article 28 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, although it is known to the science of criminal law. This type of incident manifests itself in the absence of the necessary signs of frivolity and its essence lies in the fact that the person who foresaw the possibility of the occurrence of socially dangerous consequences reasonably (not arrogantly) counted on their prevention. Frivolity is characterized by a mistake in calculating certain circumstances that are objectively unable to prevent harm. In the type of case under consideration, there is no such error, the person’s calculation is justified, but the harm occurs due to other reasons that cannot be blamed on the person. An example is the following situation. Store manager N., knowing that the roof of her store was leaking, and having heard a weather report according to which hot, dry weather without precipitation was expected in the next decade, decided to postpone the roof repair until the end of this decade. The security guard of the store, R., who did not know about the defect in the roof, on one day of this decade generously poured water on the roof from a fire hose so that, as he explained, the slate on the roof of the store would not crack from the intense heat. As a result, goods worth a large amount were flooded and damaged.

In this example, of particular interest is the question of whether store manager N. was guilty. Law students who were supposed to solve this problem usually claim that N. was guilty in the form of frivolity. With a high degree of probability, it can be predicted that law enforcement officials will draw the same conclusion. However, this decision appears to be erroneous. N.’s calculation in this case was not frivolous, but reasonable. N. would have been frivolous if the forecast of the weather forecasters had not come true and the goods would have been drenched in rain. As noted above, the cause of socially dangerous consequences in the type of incident under consideration are additional factors that the person was not able to foresee. Such a factor in the given example with the store manager is the behavior of the security guard R.

4. The fourth type of innocent infliction of harm is enshrined in Part 2 of Article 28 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, according to which an act is recognized as committed innocently if the person who committed it, although he foresaw the possibility of socially dangerous consequences of his actions (inaction), could not prevent these consequences due to the discrepancy between their psychophysiological qualities and the requirements of extreme conditions or neuropsychic overload. A prerequisite for causing this type of harm is the presence of an extreme situation in which the harm-doer finds himself.

Extreme conditions should be understood as extreme circumstances, unusual in difficulty and complexity, posing a danger (as a rule, to the life and health of people). The real manifestation of an incident of this type is possible mainly in the sphere of interaction between man and technology. Suffice it to recall press reports about various “emergency situations” in the field of space exploration, on submarines, in plane crashes, etc., when damage occurred due to the so-called “human factor.” Natural phenomena can also create extreme conditions for humans. These could be floods, earthquakes, avalanches in the mountains, etc. It is impossible to give an exhaustive list of extreme situations. It's always a question of fact. An example of an extreme situation would be the situation of rescuing a drowning person, when the latter, fighting for his own life, drags a person under the water and remains alive (other rescuers arrived in time), and his rescuer dies.

When establishing the guilt or innocence of a person in such cases, one should compare the level (degree) of “extreme” of the situation with the psychophysiological state of the person. Such conditions that deprive the subject of making a decision adequate to the situation may include stress, shock, horror, etc. More detailed information about psychophysiological qualities can be gleaned from the literature on psychology and psychiatry. To establish guilt or innocent harm, in necessary cases, forensic examinations should be ordered and specialists of the relevant professions should be involved.

Another variant of this type of incident is when a person causes harm due to neuropsychic overload, which should be understood as the person being in a state of deep fatigue, under the influence of which he was unable to prevent the harm caused. A mandatory feature of such overloads is that they are forced. For example, a power plant operator, without waiting for his replacement after a daily shift, is forced to remain at his workplace for the second day. After some time, he involuntarily falls asleep at the remote control and does not respond to instrument readings, resulting in an explosion. In the above example, neuropsychic overloads are forced and excusable. In such a situation, a driver may find himself delivering a patient to the hospital, having been behind the wheel for a long time, involuntarily falling asleep and causing an accident. On the other hand, a “truck driver” who pursued the goal of making as many trips as possible, who deliberately violated the established traffic and rest schedule, fell asleep at the wheel and committed an accident, should not be found innocent. In establishing guilt or an incident of this type, if necessary, a forensic psychological examination should also be ordered or specialists of the appropriate profile should be involved.

Taking into account the above signs, it cannot be considered innocently caused on the basis of Part 3 of Article 28 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in cases where the person: Kotov I.K. Guilt in civil and criminal law: concept and forms // http: /students.net a) created an extreme situation with his guilty actions; b) fraudulently took a position or workplace that requires special knowledge or skills, or hid his psychophysiological deficiencies that prevent him from occupying a corresponding position or being in a certain workplace; c) voluntarily brought himself into a certain psychophysiological state, depriving him of the opportunity to overcome an extreme situation without causing harm; d) consciously allowed neuropsychological overload, which resulted in harm. In the presence of any of the above circumstances or their combination, the person’s guilt cannot be excluded.

In Part 1 of Art. 28 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation enshrines this type of innocent causing of harm, which in criminal theory is called subjective case, or “incident”.

In relation to crimes with a formal composition it means that the person who committed a socially dangerous act was not aware and, due to the circumstances of the case, could not be aware of the social danger of his actions (inaction). This kind of “incident” is, for example, an attempt to sell a counterfeit banknote by a person who does not realize that the banknote is counterfeit.

In relation to material compositions the subjective case is that the person who committed a socially dangerous act did not foresee the possibility of socially dangerous consequences occurring and, due to the circumstances of the case, should not or could not have foreseen them. This type of subjective case is distinguished from negligence by the absence of either both or at least one of its criteria.

Important! Please keep in mind that:

• Each case is unique and individual.
• A thorough study of the issue does not always guarantee a positive outcome. It depends on many factors.

To get the most detailed advice on your issue, you just need to choose any of the options offered:

For example, K. was convicted of reckless murder committed under the following circumstances. Having lit a cigarette, he threw a burning match over his shoulder, which hit a gasoline barrel lying by the road and caused an explosion of gasoline vapors. At the same time, the bottom of the barrel flew out and, hitting S., caused him a mortal wound. Taking into account these circumstances, the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR came to the conclusion that S.’s death was the result of an accident, since K.’s duties did not include foreseeing the actual consequences that occurred and he could not foresee and prevent them, therefore, they were caused without guilt (See: Collection of resolutions of the Presidium and rulings of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR. 1957-1959. M., 1960. P. 19.).

In Part 2 of Art. 28 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation establishes a new, previously unknown type of innocent infliction of harm. It is characterized by the fact that the person who committed a socially dangerous act, although he foresaw the possibility of socially dangerous consequences of his actions (inaction), could not prevent these consequences due to the inconsistency of his psychophysiological qualities with the requirements of extreme conditions or neuropsychic overload. In such a situation, the absence of guilt is due to the objective impossibility of preventing the onset of socially dangerous consequences for one of the two reasons specified in the law.

Firstly, guilt is excluded if the inability to prevent harmful consequences that are covered by the foresight of the actor is due to the inconsistency of the psychophysiological qualities of the harm-doer with the requirements of extreme conditions, i.e. such unexpectedly arisen or changed situations for which the person is not prepared due to his psychophysiological qualities unable to make the right decision and find a way to prevent harmful consequences (for example, in the event of an accident due to design defects or manufacturing defects of a machine or mechanism).

Secondly, the act is considered innocent if the impossibility of preventing socially dangerous consequences is due to the discrepancy between the psychophysical qualities of the harm-doer and his neuropsychic overload (for example, when working as an airplane pilot or an electric locomotive driver for the second shift in a row). To determine the level of a person’s psychophysiological capabilities and their compliance with the requirements of extreme conditions or neuropsychic overload, it is necessary to conduct a forensic psychological or comprehensive (psychological-psychiatric) examination.

Innocent harm - an accident, an incident - occurs when a socially dangerous act is committed. As a result, consequences occur, but the objective side of the violation is missing. The latter means that the action was committed without intent and not through negligence. Liability for innocent causing of harm is not provided. Currently, this category of socially dangerous actions includes situations where a person, foreseeing the likelihood of consequences, could not prevent them due to the discrepancy between his own psychophysiological qualities and the prevailing circumstances. Next, let's take a closer look at the concept of innocent harm.

General information

Until 1996, court practice and legislation determined innocent injury only by the absence of one or both criteria of wrongful negligence. However, over time, regulations are improved due to the emergence of a new set of reasons. As a result, legislation covers a wider range of issues. This, in turn, allows both to increase judicial practice and to more clearly distinguish between the concepts of unlawful negligence and innocent causing of damage. This fact is of particular importance in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Without taking into account a person’s ability or inability to realize the nature of his behavior and manage it, the legislator transferred the problem under consideration from a subjective category to an objective one. Including such a definition as innocent causing of harm, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation complies with the provisions of the Constitution, moral norms, and generally recognized principles of world law.

Classification

The criminal code defines types of innocent harm. The first of them is enshrined in Art. 28, part 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In particular, the provision considers the case as innocent causing of harm. If we apply the rules to crimes that differ in their formal composition, then the above means that the person who committed an action dangerous for others did not realize or could not realize the social risk that is assumed in such behavior. In this case, behavior itself should be understood not only as an action, but also as an inaction of a person, as a result of which innocent harm occurs. Example: sale of a counterfeit banknote by a citizen who did not know and, in accordance with the circumstances of the case, could not realize that it was counterfeit. If we talk about violations that have a material composition, then innocent causing of harm - an “incident” - consists in the fact that the person who committed a socially dangerous act did not foresee the likelihood of consequences and, in accordance with the circumstances of the case, could not and should not have anticipated them. This category differs from negligence in that it lacks both or at least one of its criteria. To accept a case as a non-culprit injury, both features do not have to be absent at the same time. The second category is based on the individual characteristics of the person who committed a socially dangerous act. We are talking, in particular, about the psychophysical state of the person. In Art. 28, part 2 describes a situation in which an innocent infliction of harm is recognized as such not due to the willful or intellectual attitude of the subject, but as a result of the objective impossibility of somehow preventing the onset of socially dangerous consequences for any reason given in the law.

Lack of intent in actions

The conditions for innocent tortfeasibility are provided for by law. In situations where a person did not realize and, in accordance with the circumstances, could not realize the social danger of his behavior (inaction/action), he actually fulfilled the objective part of an intentional offense. This category has various manifestations. The most common example is a situation where a person who actually carried out the objective part of the crime was misled by one or more third parties. As a result of this, the offender acted as an instrument of illegal action. This indicates innocent harm. Example: one person asks another to transport a package of medicines to a relative in another city. As a result, it turns out that instead of medicines, the package contained drugs. Also common at one time was a situation where a citizen was asked to help tow a car. A person may not realize that he is objectively contributing to the theft of vehicles.
Under other circumstances, a person might not know about the subject (nature of the object) of the harm caused when he was actually performing the objective part of the crime. Thus, there was a situation in which a bag containing, among other things, a service weapon, was stolen from a police officer who had fallen asleep in the hall of a railway station. The thief cannot be held criminally liable for stealing the item. Otherwise, it will be qualified as an imputed charge.

Inability to foresee consequences

This innocent causing of harm is associated with such a category as criminal negligence. When establishing negligence, both objective and subjective criteria must be present. As stated above, in the absence of any of them, the act is qualified as innocent causing of harm. Failure to establish an objective criterion presupposes that the subject has not violated any precautionary rules. In such cases, harm usually occurs through the fault of the victim. A situation in which there is no subjective criterion may be due to the fact that a person, due to his individual characteristics in the current conditions, could neither foresee harm nor prevent it. The personal qualities of an individual may be different. Certain features are taken into account depending on the nature of the crime with which he is charged. For example, if this offense is related to the transport sector, then hearing and visual acuity, individual motor reaction time, and others are taken into account.
If there was an innocent cause of harm while performing professional activities (negligence) or in the domestic sphere, then everyday experience, work experience, as well as the level of training of the specialist will be taken into account. Rarely is a subjective criterion absent due to the circumstances of the case. For example, a driver, having driven through a red signal, collided with a train standing in front. As a result, serious property damage was caused. However, during the consideration of the case, it was established that at that moment there was a strong snowstorm, as a result of which wet snow covered the signal and the driver did not see the signal. In this situation, the absence of a subjective sign is associated solely with the situation.

The importance of the offender’s personal qualities

It was mentioned above that innocent damage occurs when a discrepancy between the psychophysiological characteristics of the offender and the current situation is established. This, in particular, may be an extreme situation. It is understood as extreme, extremely complex, unusual circumstances that pose a certain degree of social danger. They can appear during human interaction with nature, technology, another person or a group of subjects. It is very difficult to give an exhaustive list of extreme conditions. In all cases this is a question of fact. An example would be an incident in which, while rescuing a drowning person, he, fighting for his life, drags under the water a person who came to his aid, but he himself remains alive. The rescuer dies. The psychophysiological qualities that are mentioned in the law can be expressed in such states as horror, shock, stress, stupor and others.

Nervous overstrain

Another option is considered to be innocent causing of harm as a result of nervous overload. It represents a state of profound fatigue. Under its influence, man was unable to prevent harm. Compulsion is a mandatory sign of neuropsychic overload. So, for example, a power plant operator who has worked a day and does not wait for a replacement is left for the next shift. After some time, he falls asleep due to fatigue and does not respond to alarm signals from devices. As a result, equipment malfunction or an explosion occurs. However, for example, in a situation where a truck driver, who deliberately violated the rest and movement regime, fell asleep at the wheel and hit a pedestrian, he must be held accountable by law. In this situation, establishing innocence is allowed only through a forensic psychological assessment of the state of the offender at the time of the commission of a dangerous act.

No signs of frivolity

This is another type of innocent damage. It is specified in Article 28 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The essence of the absence of signs of frivolity is that the person who foresaw the likelihood of consequences occurring did not arrogantly, reasonably counted on their prevention. The occurrence of harm in such situations is caused by the intervention of random circumstances. Man could not foresee them and prevent their harmful effects.

An intellectual moment due to negligence

Each form of guilt can be characterized on the basis of two elements. They are volitional and intellectual moments. The latter reflects the subjective attitude of a person who has committed a socially dangerous act to his behavior. Negligence acts as the only form of guilt in which the individual does not foresee the onset of consequences in any of their manifestations: neither in the abstract, nor in the real, nor in the inevitable. However, this fact does not mean at all the absence of any mental attitude to what happened. It represents a form of such a relationship. The fact that a person did not foresee the consequences of negligence indicates his disregard for the interests of other persons and the requirements of the law. In the presence of a number of circumstances, the individual could and should have assumed them.
The intellectual moment is characterized by negative and positive signs. The first means failure to foresee the likely consequences, includes a lack of understanding of the social danger of the act he commits and the subject of the crime. This provision highlights the similarities between negligence and innocent tort. A positive sign is distinguished by the presence of objective and subjective criteria. The first means that the offender had to foresee the consequences, the second means that he could have foreseen, but only if any other person could. In other words, the absence of an obligation to provide for socially dangerous consequences makes it possible to exclude the individual’s guilt.

Characteristics of an act of frivolity

It is revealed through a number of signs. First of all, it should be said that the subject is aware of the social danger of inaction or action that he commits and in which there is a potential threat of causing serious consequences. The individual also assumes the likelihood of the consequences of his behavior occurring. It is worth noting here that despite this assumption, man does not clothe them in any specific form. He represents their probability in the abstract. At the same time, a person, arrogantly counting on preventing consequences, assumes the presence of factors that, in his opinion, can help him avoid them. As for the volitional moment, the legislation defines it not as hope, but as a calculation to eliminate socially dangerous consequences. The culprit assumes real, very specific circumstances that may contribute to this. He estimates their value incorrectly. As a result, the expectation of eliminating criminal consequences becomes groundless and arrogant, without sufficient prerequisites.

Categories differentiation

Taking into account all of the above, we can say that innocent causing of damage does not have an intellectual element. In other words, there is no visible positive psychological connection between the perpetrator of a crime and the criminal consequences caused by his behavior. However, this provision is legal only in the cases provided for in Art. 28, paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If we consider the volitional moment, we can note a certain similarity in the categories. It lies in the fact that in the case of frivolous, careless, and innocent damage, there is no positive attitude towards the likely occurrence of consequences that pose a social danger. However, in the first case, a person foresees the possibility of such a result occurring. But at the same time, he commits a potentially dangerous act of will, while trying to use some factors in his personal interests, trying to prevent dangerous consequences. So, for example, a person, knowing that damage is likely to occur, hopes to prevent it, using objective factors for this: notifying third parties, taking any technical measures, etc.

In accordance with Article 5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, criminal liability for innocent causing of harm is not allowed. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for the first time included the norm on innocent causing of harm, providing for two of its varieties.

In part 1 of Art. 28 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation enshrines this type of innocent causing of harm, which in the theory of criminal law is called a subjective case, or “incident”. In relation to formal crimes, this means that the person who committed a socially dangerous act did not realize and, due to the circumstances of the case, could not realize the social danger of his actions (inaction). This kind of “incident” is, for example, the sale of a counterfeit banknote by a person who did not realize and, due to the circumstances of the case, could not realize that the bill was counterfeit. In relation to crimes with a material component, the subjective case is that the person who committed a socially dangerous act did not foresee the possibility of socially dangerous consequences occurring and, due to the circumstances of the case, should not or could not have foreseen them. This type of subjective case is distinguished from negligence by the absence of either both or at least one of its criteria.

To establish a subjective case, the simultaneous absence of both criteria of negligence is not necessary; the absence of at least one of them - either objective or subjective - is sufficient.

In part 2 art. 28 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation establishes a new, previously unknown to the law and judicial practice, type of innocent infliction of harm.

It is characterized by the fact that the person who committed a socially dangerous act, although he foresaw the possibility of socially dangerous consequences of his actions (inaction), could not prevent these consequences due to the inconsistency of his psychophysiological qualities with the requirements of extreme conditions or neuropsychic overload. By refusing to raise the question of the subject’s ability or inability to realize the nature of his actions and direct them, the legislator unwittingly transferred the problem from a subjective plane to an objective one.

In the situation described in part 2 of Art. 28 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, causing harm is recognized as not due to defects in the intellectual or volitional attitude, but due to the objective impossibility of preventing the onset of socially dangerous consequences for one of the two reasons specified in the law.

It is important to examine in more detail the types of innocent harm to understand the difference specified by the legislator.

Thus, in Art. 28 of the Criminal Code names three types of innocent causing of harm:

the person did not realize and, due to the circumstances of the case, could not realize the social danger of his actions (inaction);

the person did not foresee the possibility of socially dangerous consequences and, due to the circumstances of the case, should not or could not have foreseen them;

the person foresaw the possibility of socially dangerous consequences of his actions (inaction), but could not prevent them due to the discrepancy of his psychophysiological qualities with the requirements of extreme conditions or neuropsychic overload.

First a type of innocent infliction of harm is associated with a person’s unawareness of the social danger of his act, which excludes criminal liability for the consequences that occur as a result of this act, since one cannot be held accountable for something that is outside the consciousness and will of a person.

Second a type of innocent harm is associated with the absence of either an objective or subjective criterion of negligence. It is determined either by the lack of a person’s obligation to foresee the consequences of his act, or by the lack of the person’s ability to foresee the consequences of his act. Third a type of innocent infliction of harm is characterized by the fact that a person is objectively unable, due to his psychophysiological qualities, to prevent the onset of consequences that he foresees and which occur as a result of his act. In some cases - due to the inconsistency of their psychophysiological qualities with the requirements of extreme conditions, in others - due to the inconsistency of their psychophysiological qualities with neuropsychic overloads.

In other words, the third type of innocent harm presupposes the presence of conditions (circumstances, situations) that exclude a person’s ability to react appropriately. In each specific case, the conditions (circumstances, situations) and psychophysiological capabilities of the person must be assessed.

It seems that the third type of innocent harm involves the occurrence of extreme conditions or neuropsychic overloads in addition to or against the will and consciousness of the person. Otherwise, the person is subject to criminal liability.

31. Legal and factual errors: concept, types, criminal legal significance.Error represents an incorrect assessment by the person committing the crime of his behavior, the actual circumstances of the crime, the consequences, the conditions of illegality, etc.

There are two types of errors:

– legal errors– this is a person’s incorrect understanding of the legal essence or legal consequences of the act he commits;

– factual errors– this is an incorrect assessment by a person of factual circumstances, which are objective signs of an act, mandatory elements of a crime.

Types of legal error:

1) error regarding the wrongfulness of an act - expressed in a person’s incorrect understanding of:

– about the criminality of his act– the person believes that his actions are criminal and entail criminal liability, but are not provided for by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation;

– the innocence of his act– the person believes that the act he commits does not entail criminal liability, but the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation considers such an act a crime;

2) mistake in qualification of the offense– the person is mistaken in the criminal legal assessment of the act;

3) error regarding the type and amount of punishment for a crime. Such an error does not affect liability, since the type and amount of punishment are beyond the subjective side, and does not affect either the qualifications or the amount and type of punishment determined by the court.

Types of factual error: 1)error in object– consists of a misconception by the person committing the crime about the content of the object of the offense as a mandatory element of the offense;

2) error in subject– misconception regarding the properties and materially expressed characteristics of an object. An error in an item that is a mandatory element of the offense affects the qualification of the offense. An error in a subject that is an optional element does not affect the qualification;

3) mistake in the identity of the victim– lies in the fact that the subject, wanting to cause harm to one person, as a result of delusion, causes harm to another person. Actions in such cases are qualified as a completed crime;

4) error in the nature of the action or inaction performed. This kind of error can be of two types:

– the person does not consider his actions (inaction) dangerous and entailing criminal liability, although they are recognized as a crime by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation;

– a person considers his actions (inaction) to be socially dangerous, but in fact they are not – responsibility comes for attempted crime;

5) error regarding signs characterizing the objective side,– may consist of an error regarding the quantitative or qualitative characteristics of socially dangerous consequences.

An error regarding the quantitative characteristics of the consequences does not affect the qualification of the offense if this error does not go beyond the limits established by the legislator.

An error in the qualitative characterization of consequences may include:

– failure to foresee harm that actually occurred – liability for an intentional crime is excluded;

- in anticipation of harm that did not occur - liability may arise for an attempted crime (if there is direct intent).

The legislation of the Russian Federation provides for such a concept as an incident or otherwise - innocent causing of harm. Its meaning is revealed in Article 28 of the Criminal Code, according to which an action (inaction) of a person is considered committed innocently if he did not realize and could not, due to the circumstances of the case, realize the social danger of the committed act or did not foresee the possible occurrence of (OOP) and could not, due to the circumstances of the case, foresee their.

This rule is also applicable to persons who, although they foresaw that the onset of SOD was possible from the act they committed, could not prevent them due to the discrepancy between their own psychophysiological qualities and the overloads of a neuropsychic nature and the requirements of extreme conditions.

Liability, due to the absence of guilt, for innocent causing of harm is not provided for by the criminal code. For this reason, it must be distinguished from intentional harm. They differ from each other in volitional and intellectual aspects. In the case of intentional infliction of harm, a person is aware of his own act, but in case of carelessness, the person is not aware of it; due to the circumstances of the case, he cannot be aware of it. A person, unlike intent, in an incident does not foresee the possibility of OOP arising. He has no desire for consequences to occur, including no conscious assumption or indifferent attitude.

Innocent harm, example: the owner of the apartment, in order to poison cockroaches in the food that was in the pan, added toxic substances, after which he suddenly had a need and left. At this time, a thief entered the apartment and, since he was hungry, poisoned himself and died. The owner of the apartment did not and could not foresee the onset of OOP - death that occurred as a result of the incident, and did not want such consequences to occur. The actions of the apartment owner are not criminal and do not entail. But if he deliberately left such a surprise for thieves, then in this case he would be subject to liability according to the law.

Innocent infliction of harm must also be distinguished from negligence, since a person not only does not foresee the possible occurrence of an accident, but due to the circumstances of the case, he also could not foresee them.

Innocent infliction of harm is a special person who acts (or, conversely, inaction) in an environment that excludes public danger.

A special type of incident is if the person who caused the harm foresaw the possibility of the occurrence of POP, but due to the discrepancy between his own psychophysiological qualities and the existing requirements of extreme conditions, overloads of a neuropsychic nature, he allowed them to occur. This norm is prescribed in criminal law due to the strong neuropsychic stress of persons associated with operating equipment (for example, truck drivers) or emergency conditions (for example, test pilots). Such people often foresee the possibility of consequences, but cannot, due to their qualities and capabilities, prevent them. At the same time, persons through whose fault OOPs arose are subject to criminal liability, for example, concealing deficiencies that prevent the performance of certain activities or putting oneself in a state that precluded the possibility of preventing OOPs due to the use of alcohol, psychotropic or narcotic drugs.

Unintentional does not entail the same legal consequences as causing harm with intent. For this reason, it is necessary to clearly distinguish them and correctly qualify the actions (inaction) of a person.