Every year, some questions of Criminal Law are directly selected from the three textbooks, but many candidates do not pay attention to these questions, which is very inappropriate. Now is the final sprint stage. I list the places that candidates in the textbook are easy to ignore for the final sprint.

1. From the nature of violating legal norms, omission not only violates the prohibitive norms of criminal law, but also directly violates some imperative norms. For example, the act of not providing assistance in the crime of abandonment is manifested in the failure to support people who do not have the ability to live independently. This act not only violates the prohibitive norms of the crime of abandonment in Article 261 of the Criminal Law, but also directly violates the mandatory norms in the Marriage Law.

2. Only when the actor's performance as an obligation can avoid the consequences, his inaction may constitute a crime. For example, the driver's negligence caused a traffic accident, which led to the victim's skull fracture, and even if he was sent to the hospital immediately, he could not save his life, or when the victim would die immediately, even if the driver did not help, he would only be convicted of traffic accident, but not of intentional homicide by omission.

3. A intentionally used violence against B by killing people, which caused B to be seriously injured on the verge of death. When B was treated in the hospital, doctor C was slightly negligent and failed to save B's life. Because A's behavior leads to a high risk of death, and the intervention (slight negligence) has little effect on the death, it should be determined that there is a causal relationship between A's behavior and B's death.

4. If an actor under the age of 14 puts poison into other people's wine and hides the poisoned wine in the wine cabinet, and when others drink it, the actor has reached the age of 14, it can be considered that the actor has the obligation to eliminate the dangers that may be caused by his actions before the age of 14, and if he has reached the age of 14, he still fails to perform the obligation to eliminate the dangerous sources, thus leading to the death of others, the crime of intentional homicide shall be established.

5. laissez-faire is based on the premise that the actor realizes that the harmful result may or may not happen. If the actor has realized that his behavior is bound to have harmful results and is determined to implement it, there is no possibility of laissez-faire, and his subjective will can only be a direct intention to hope that the result will happen.

6. Among all the damage results of excessive defense, due to the premise of justifiable defense, this damage result can actually be divided into two parts: one is due damage, and the other is unnecessary damage. Excessive defense only bears criminal responsibility for its undue harmful results, but not for all harmful results. This is also the subjective and objective basis for China's criminal law to explicitly stipulate that excessive defense should be mitigated or exempted from punishment, which is the embodiment of the basic principle of balance between crime and punishment.

7. Not all violent crimes, such as assault, murder, robbery, * * * * * * * *, kidnapping, can be defended by the system of excessive defense. Only when violent crimes seriously endanger personal safety can we defend ourselves without undue restraint. For example, if you defend against the illegal infringement of robbery by using anesthesia methods that will not cause casualties to others, you can't defend yourself without undue defense.

8. Abduction and trafficking of children, even if children are obtained, will not affect the establishment of crime of trafficking in children.

9. The impossibility of committing the object and the impossibility of committing the means are both limited to situations that have the danger of causing harmful results. If an act is completely impossible to lead to harmful results, it should not be punished as an attempted crime. For example, if you shoot a scarecrow as an enemy in the barren hills and fields, and it is impossible to cause other people's casualties, it is not an attempted crime. Another example is that people who mistakenly treat fitness drugs as arsenic and throw them into other people's food should not be punished as attempted crime because there is absolutely no possibility of casualties.

1. *** accomplice may only refer to * * * accomplice in the sense of having the object and objective elements of a crime. For example, at the request of a 15-year-old, a 16-year-old B keeps watch for a burglary. In this case, it should be considered that B and A have the same crime in the sense of the object and objective elements of the crime. B conforms to the subject and subjective elements of the crime, so it is an accessory in the crime (theft) (on this occasion, B cannot be regarded as an indirect principal offender). However, because A has not reached the age of criminal responsibility and does not meet the requirements of the criminal subject, A cannot be convicted and sentenced for theft.

11. A wanted to rob and violently attacked A. After suppressing A's resistance, B arrived at the scene, knowing that A was robbing A's property, and together with A, B took A's property. In this case, A and B are both guilty of robbery.

12. C tried to rob B's property and violently injured B. At this time, Ding arrived at the scene, knowing that C was going to rob B's property, and both Ding and C * * * took B's property. Although Ding is guilty of robbery with C, Dante does not bear criminal responsibility for B's serious injury, only C bears criminal responsibility for B's serious injury.

13. Both C and D intentionally hurt B, but they don't know whose behavior caused B's serious injury. For this, C and D should be responsible for B's serious injury.

14. Both X and Y*** intentionally committed violence against C, resulting in C's death. C had only one fatal wound, but I don't know who caused it, and it was found out afterwards that X had the intention to kill and Y only had the intention to hurt. In this regard, it should be recognized that X is guilty of intentional homicide (accomplished) and Y is guilty of intentional injury (death).

15. If the instigator commits the abetting act, but the abetted person does not commit the abetted crime, then the instigator and the abetted person are not guilty of * * *, but the instigator should still bear criminal responsibility.

16. Party A and Party B * * * conspired to kill C who worked in a museum, and at the same time fired their guns at C. A hit a precious cultural relic under state protection, while B missed any target. This is a * * * accomplice. Because Party A and Party B intentionally murdered Party C, but failed to cause the death of Party C, they were convicted of attempted intentional homicide. A's behavior also violated the crime of negligent destruction of precious cultural relics, and negligent crime does not constitute a crime of * * *, so B is not guilty of this crime. A's behavior is that one behavior violates several charges and belongs to imaginative joinder, so in fact, A can only be punished as attempted murder.

17. Party A invited Party B to commit violence against Party C. Party B thought that Party A only wanted to hurt Party C. In fact, Party A had the intention of killing people, and both parties committed violence against Party C, resulting in the death of Party C.. In this case, only within the scope of the crime of intentional injury can Party A and Party B constitute * * * accomplice (* * * accomplice), and Party C is responsible for the death result. However, because A has the intention and behavior of killing people, A should be regarded as the crime of intentional homicide.

18. Party A instigated Party B to destroy public telecommunication facilities, while Party B misunderstood the contents of Party A's instigation and destroyed military communication facilities. Because Party A has the intention and behavior of instigating others to destroy public telecommunication facilities, he is an instigator of the crime of destroying public telecommunication facilities. Within this range, B has committed * * * with A (some crimes are the same as * * *). However, because B's behavior also meets the constitutive requirements of the crime of undermining military communications, B's behavior is considered as the crime of undermining military communications.

19. Party A thinks that Party B is a person without criminal responsibility and instigates Party B to commit theft with the intention of indirect principal offender. In fact, Party B has criminal responsibility and committed theft. If the criminal law divides * * * prisoners into principal offenders, instigators and aiding offenders, it must be determined whether A is an indirect principal offender or an instigator. Although the criminal law of our country divides the * * * prisoner into principal, accessory and coerced accomplice, and the instigator should be punished according to his role in the criminal process, it is still necessary to distinguish whether A is an indirect principal or instigator in the sense of whether or not he is convicted of * * *. According to the principle of criminal law, A should be regarded as an instigator within the scope of the unity of subject and object. In the opposite case, that is, abetting the other party with criminal responsibility, but in fact, the other party has no criminal responsibility, and can only be identified as an instigator within the scope of the unity of subject and object.

2. Whoever steals a gun for the purpose of killing people and uses the stolen gun to kill people cannot be regarded as a crime. Because the legal evaluation of the crime of intentional homicide cannot include the legal evaluation of the crime of stealing guns, the crime of stealing guns and the crime of intentional homicide should be punished together.

21. If the stolen file is a state secret, it violates the crime of stealing state-owned files and the crime of illegally obtaining state secrets, which belongs to imaginative joinder and is punished as a felony.

22. * * * * * * * If a woman causes serious injuries to her, she is an aggravated crime because the criminal law has aggravated the statutory punishment. Those who force women to molest or insult them seriously are not aggravated as the criminal law does not aggravate the statutory punishment.

23. It is not appropriate to be regarded as implicated offense if there is only an objective implicated relationship but no subjective implicated relationship. For example, the perpetrator stole a gun for hunting a year ago and used it for robbing a bank a year later. Although the two acts are related objectively, they are not related subjectively, so the establishment of implicated offense is denied.

24. Although there is a subjective implicated relationship between the means behavior and the purpose behavior, if the implicated relationship between the means behavior and the purpose behavior is not normal, it should not be regarded as implicated offense. For example, if a person steals a gun in order to rob a bank, and then uses the stolen gun to rob a bank, he shall be punished for several crimes of robbery and gun theft, and cannot be regarded as an implicated offender.

25. If the death sentence is reduced to life imprisonment or fixed-term imprisonment according to law, although the punishment is substantially reduced, it is not the commutation system stipulated in Article 78 of the Criminal Law.

26. A violent sex offender sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of more than 1 years or life imprisonment shall not be released on parole, even if his sentence is less than 1 years after commutation.

27. As long as new crimes are committed during the probation period of parole, even if new crimes are discovered after the probation period of parole, parole should be revoked and combined punishment should be implemented according to the method of reducing first and then combining.

28. The use of insurance contracts to defraud insurance money violates the crime of insurance fraud and contract fraud. The principle of application is that the law is more important than the law (page 112 of the third edition of 21). In this sense, insurance fraud has violated the crime of insurance fraud and contract fraud. There is a relationship between the general law and the special law. Under this premise, if the principle that special laws are superior to ordinary laws is applied, there will be unreasonable phenomena: whoever uses insurance contracts to defraud insurance money can only be sentenced to 15 years in prison, no matter how much it is and how serious the circumstances are; Those who use other economic contracts to defraud property may be sentenced to life imprisonment. Therefore, if it is considered that there is a relationship between special law and ordinary law between Article 198 and Article 224 of the Criminal Law, this principle can be applied on the premise that it is better to apply heavy law than light law, so as to realize the principle of adapting crime to punishment. First of all, the use of insurance contracts to defraud insurance money violates the special provisions and ordinary provisions of the same law; Secondly, the statutory punishment stipulated in the special law of the same law is obviously lower than that stipulated in the ordinary law. Moreover, according to the situation of the case, the application of the special law does not conform to the principle of adapting crime to punishment; Finally, Article 224 of the Criminal Law does not prohibit the application of ordinary laws, that is, it does not explicitly stipulate that special laws must be applied like Article 266 of the Criminal Law. Therefore, we can apply the principle that the law is superior to the law.

29. If the perpetrator sets fire to destroy criminal evidence after committing other criminal acts, or sets fire to defraud insurance money and has started to defraud insurance money, he should be punished for several crimes. (page 115 of the third edition of 21)

3. Interpreting cars in the crime of destroying vehicles as including large tractors is an expanded interpretation, not an analogy interpretation.

31. Stealing and robbing guns, ammunition and explosives belong to abstract dangerous crimes: as long as the actor commits the act of stealing and robbing guns, ammunition and explosives, he can draw a conclusion that it is dangerous to the public according to the general life experience of society. However, those who steal or rob dangerous substances belong to specific dangerous crimes, and it is necessary to judge whether they are dangerous to the public according to the types of dangerous substances and the behavior of theft and robbery. If they do not endanger the safety of the public, they will not be convicted of this crime.

32. If the perpetrator illegally manufactures guns and ammunition, and then holds it or hides it, it belongs to the crime of absorption, and only the crime of illegally manufacturing guns and ammunition is convicted.

33. The actor knows that drunk driving is illegal and will endanger the safety of the public, but ignores the law and continues to drive after the accident, causing heavy casualties, which shows that the actor is subjectively laissez-faire about the continuous harmful results and has the intention to endanger the safety of the public. If such drunk driving causes heavy casualties, he shall be convicted of endangering public security by dangerous means according to law.

34. Whoever violates traffic regulations during or after stealing another person's motor vehicle and causes a traffic accident, which constitutes a crime, shall be punished in combination with the crime of traffic accident and theft.

35. After a traffic accident, the actor thinks that the victim is dead, and in order to hide the traces of the crime, he sinks the victim into the river. In fact, if the victim drowned in the river, the latter behavior should be regarded as the crime of negligent death. If the former behavior has constituted the crime of causing traffic accidents, it should be punished for several crimes.

36. The lines that have been electrified and used, but the power supply is suspended due to dry season or power shortage, should still be considered as the lines in use. If the perpetrator secretly cuts the wires in such lines, if it constitutes a crime, he should be investigated for criminal responsibility according to the crime of destroying power equipment.

37. The transportation in the crime of illegally transporting dangerous substances includes both domestic transportation, domestic transportation and overseas transportation.

38. Whoever commits the crime of producing and selling fake drugs, which also constitutes crimes such as producing and selling fake and inferior products, infringing intellectual property rights, illegal business operation, illegal medical practice, illegal blood collection and blood supply, shall be convicted and punished in accordance with the provisions of heavier punishment.

39. The person in charge of a state-owned company, enterprise or the directly responsible department at a higher level sells state-owned assets to himself, his spouse or children at a low price without permission, or colludes with others to sell them to others in name, but actually makes a profit for himself, which is considered as the crime of corruption, not the crime of converting shares at a low price for personal gain or selling state-owned assets.

4. Using counterfeit money means using counterfeit money as real money. You can use counterfeit money in a seemingly legal way, such as buying goods, exchanging it for another currency, depositing it in a bank, giving it to others, or using counterfeit money to pay fines or penalties, or you can use counterfeit money in an illegal way, such as gambling. In addition, the crime of using counterfeit money is committed by delivering counterfeit money to someone who doesn't know it, and by putting counterfeit money into vending machines to obtain goods.

41. It is not the use of counterfeit money to show counterfeit money to others for the purpose of signing a contract with the other party to prove that they are capable of performing the contract.

42. If the defendant mistook the proceeds of a predicate offence and its proceeds as stipulated in Article 191 of the Criminal Law for other proceeds and their proceeds within the scope of predicate offences as stipulated in Article 191 of the Criminal Law,