When drafting the provisions of the specific part of the Criminal Code (KZ-1) and defining several criminal acts, the legislator (in intellectual negligence) applied a questionable legislative technique – the use of plural (nouns) pertaining to the unlawful consequence, although Slovenian language is familiar with the alternative solution - the use of their singular form. To comply with the principle of legality being the core constitutional basis of criminal law and to abide by the textual approach to interpretation of criminal provisions as the central method for their understanding, a criminal act can only be committed when, by action or omission, the perpetrator fulfils all the plural-formulated elements of the unlawful consequence. In contrast (and construed narrowly), fulfilling only one of such elements cannot lead to the criminal act being committed, neither it allows for a consideration of a criminal attempt. The master’s thesis focuses on the (non)compliance with the principle of legality in criminal law when using plural in defining the unlawful consequence in criminal acts. In search of the answer it seeks to analyse the theoretical grounds and the (arguably well-reasoned) court-based argumentation on the matter, which depict incoherence in determining the correct elements of criminal conduct.