Кашапов Р.М

The article is devoted to the detailed analysis of the notes to the article 134 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The author carried out both the theoretical analysis of a criminal and legal definition, and the analysis of a court practice. Examples from the judicial and investigative practice with the author’s comments are given. According to the author, literal interpretation of the note 1 to the article 134 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation allows draw a categorical conclusion that concerning the persons who committed crimes according to p.1 of the article 134 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation it is impossible to stop criminal cases in connection with a release from criminal liability. The courts are obliged to exempt such persons from punishment and only in cases if the perpetrators complied the conditions stated by the legislator in the note 1 of the article 134 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

This article is devoted to the questions of qualification of causing death on imprudence (Art. 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), evaluation of the subjective party of a crime. On the example of concrete criminal case by the author basic elements of the corpus delicti provided by are analyzed the 2nd part of the Article 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (further CC of RF). The author is solidary with the other researchers that the subjects of discretion in the criminal law (application of the criminal legislation) can act the body of inquiry, the chief of division of inquiry, the investigator, the head of investigative body, the investigator, the prosecutor, the court. Activity of these subjects is always dressed in a procedural form as their decisions on application of the criminal law are fixed in the procedural acts.

The article is devoted to the questions of stimulation of positive post-criminal behavior in the fight with crimes against the property. According to the author, an increase in the bases for release from the criminal liability, and also the mitigation of punishment for positive post-criminal behavior speaks, first of all, not only about the humanization of policy of the state in the field of the fight with the crime, but also about stimulation of the socially positive behavior of the persons who committed the crimes. For the stimulation of positive post-criminal behavior the author offers acceptance of the "mixed" norm in the articles 158, 159, 160 of the criminal code of the Russian Federation (further-CC RF), and also the draft of the note to the articles 161 and 162 of CC RF. The author gives the results of the questioning of the law enforcement officers which is conducted by him with a question of expediency in the criminal legislation of adoption of the incentive norm exempting from the criminal liability for commission of plunders of someone else's property provided by the articles 158 – 160 of CC RF.

The article is devoted to the comparative legal analysis of the criminal legislation of Russia and foreign countries, on the example of Japan, South Korea, China, Turkey, for a crimination of the obviously innocent. According to the author, giving by the accused false testimonies in which he criminate the innocent person, has to attract criminal liability for obviously false denunciation (Art. 306 of the criminal code of Russian Federation (CCRF)). The author considers crimination of the obviously innocent as one of the types of the negative post-criminal behavior counteracting disclosure and investigation of a crime. The author offered the need of establishment of criminal liability for crimination of the innocent person and the draft of the article 306 of CCRF / performance, crimination, artificial creation of proofs of the obviously innocent person and falsification of the proofs of charge.