This thesis considers a study on 'aberratio ictus', and especially in connection with the supreme court decision. We examined aberratio ictus and clearly shows difference of theories and practical affairs with reference to the point of a supreme court...
This thesis considers a study on 'aberratio ictus', and especially in connection with the supreme court decision. We examined aberratio ictus and clearly shows difference of theories and practical affairs with reference to the point of a supreme court decision. In criminal law Irrtum is divided into Tatbestandsirrtum and Verbotsirrtum . Tatbestandsirrtum means there is discordance between things which a person knows subjectively and what actually occurs in a criminal act.
As we have already shown, error in objecto and aberratio ictus have different structures. In addition there are opinions that because Konkretisierungstheorie has too small a scope to recognize Vorsatz, these opinions go against the general public's view point. But this criticism may be groundless if we can't give our approval in practical affairs, passing judgment according to common view point without considering theoretical validity and the law, as it stands. Versuch is grounds for fakultative Strafmilderung. Accordingly even if the problems are solved, Konkretisierungstheorie better supports Schuldprinzip
It consists of three main parts.
Ⅰ. The supreme court decision
Ⅱ. A study on decision
Ⅲ. Conclusion