Dejanska zmota v teoriji in sodni praksi

Bulović, Luka (author), Jakulin, Vid (mentor)

Sodobno evrokontinentalno kazensko pravo v glavnem temelji na nemški tradiciji splošnega pojma kaznivega dejanja. Sestavljen je iz treh glavnih elementov in sicer iz izpolnjenosti biti kaznivega dejanja, protipravnosti in krivde. Z elementom krivde pa je tesno povezan institut dejanske zmote. Zmota v splošnem pomeni, da kdo sploh nima predstave o kakšnem dejstvu, ne ve zanj ali pa ima o kakšnem dejstvu oziroma okoliščini napačno predstavo. Dejanska zmota v ožjem pomenu je nevednost ali napačna predstava o kakšni okoliščini, ki jo zakon določa kot znak kaznivega dejanja in vselej izključuje storilčev naklep. Sodišče lahko upošteva dejansko zmoto tudi v primeru malomarnosti storilca, vendar le, če oceni, da je bila zmota neizogibna. Dejanska zmota v širšem pomenu je opredeljena kot zmota o okoliščinah, ki sicer niso zakonski znak kaznivega dejanja, so pa takšne narave, da dejanje ne bi bilo protipravno, če bi bile zares podane. Tudi slednja izključuje storilčevo naklepno krivdo, določba glede kaznivosti malomarnosti pa je identična kot pri dejanski zmoti v ožjem pomenu. Zmota se lahko nanaša tudi na okoliščine izključitve krivde, na osebo, na objekt in tudi na vzročno zvezo. Določbo o dejanski zmoti vsebujejo tudi kazenski zakoniki drugih držav, katerim je skupno to, da priznavajo učinek dejanske zmote pri naklepnih kaznivih dejanjih in ga izključujejo oziroma skrajno omejujejo pri nenaklepnih kaznivih dejanjih. To pa predvsem zato, ker je v ozadju strah, da bi prišlo do prevelike subjektivizacije prava in do tega, da bi se s sklicevanjem na zmoto veliko ljudi izognilo kazni. Z dejansko zmoto se ukvarja tudi sodna praksa. V našem pravu po mojem mnenju slednja ni zelo razvita, je pa enotna. Očitno je, da sodišče v glavnem ne upošteva sklicevanja na dejansko zmoto.

• Language: Slovenian
• Keywords: splošni pojem kaznivega dejanja, dejanska zmota v ožjem pomenu, dejanska zmota v širšem pomenu, dejanska zmota primerjalnopravno, dejanska zmota v slovenski sodni praksi.
• Work type: Master's thesis/paper
• Organization: PF - Faculty of Law
• Year: 2018
• PID: 20.500.12556/RUL-100837
• COBISS.SI-ID: 16115025
• Publication date in RUL: 18.04.2018

Secondary language

• Language: English
• Title: mistake of fact in theory and in case-law

Abstract

Modern Euro – Continental criminal law is largely based on the German tradition of the general notion of a crime. It consists of three elements: fulfillment of a criminal offense, illegality and guilt. The institute mistake of fact is heavily connected with the element of guilt. Mistake of fact in general means that one does not have any idea about the fact, doesn't know about it or has a wrong idea of fact or circumstances. Mistake of fact in narrow sense is ignorance or misconception about the circumstance which is defined by the law as a sign of a criminal offense and always excludes the prepetrator's intention. The court may also consider the mistake of fact even in case of the negligence of the perpetrator, but only if it assesses that the mistake of fact was inevitable. Mistake of fact in wide sense is defined as a mistake about the circumstances that are otherwise not a legal sign of a crime, but they are of such nature that the act would not be unlawfull if they were indeed given. The mistake of fact can also apply on the circumstances of exclusion of guilt and can also refer to a person, to an object or to a cause. The provision of mistake of fact also includes penal codes of other states, which in common is to recognize the effect of the mistake of fact in intentional criminal offenses and to exclude or limit it extensively in negligent offenses. The mistake of fact is also being dealt by the case law. In Slovenian criminal case law the latter in not very comprehensive, but is unified. It is evident, that the court does not generally consider the reference to the mistake of fact.

• Keywords: the general notion of a crime, mistake of fact in narrow sense, mistake of fact in wide sense, mistake of fact in comparative law, mistake of fact in slovenian case law.