페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

QUESTION 3

There are two kinds of culpability: (a) intent and (b) negligence. Two kinds of intent are distinguished: (a) where the perpetrator intentionally and deliberately brings the factual elements into being which, according to the law, meet the definition of a punishable act (dolus directus) and (b) where the perpetrator, although he perceives the materialization of the factual elements of a crime to be possible by his act, commits the act nevertheless (dolus eventualis).

Negligence exists where a person does not pay such attention which, under certain circumstances, he is required and capable of mustering, and consequently, does not foresee the results of his act or he has foreseen the results as possible but believes that they can be averted. In both cases, the element of Intent, that is, the will to bring forth the factual basis of a crime, is lacking. Article 26 of the Criminal Code specifies that the major and minor crimes must be punished only where committed intentionally. Minor crimes committed Degligently must be punished only where the law expressly so provides.

According to the above, "mutatis mutandis” intentionally and knowingly compare with "intent" (dolus directus, and dolus eventualis), and recklessly and with negligence.

The defendant's state of mind is used to determine guilt. The accused is regarded as innocent until the pronouncement of the sentence.

QUESTION 4

Article 29 of the Criminal Code establishes the principle of "condicio sine qua non." According to this, the perpetrator must be held responsible if his act produced a certain result, and this result can be attributed to the acts of the perpetrator. Accordingly, there must be a close connection between the act and the result, so that it can be inferred that the result was the inevitable consequence of the act.

QUESTION 5 Insanity is a defense under Article 34 of the Criminal Code. The insane criminals are not legally responsible for their acts, but they are subject to security measures. These measures are part of the system of the criminal punishment and are understood as providing protection to society from the insane.

The court may appoint a psychiatrist if it appears necessary for investigation of the case. A psychiatrist may also be appointed at the request of the prosecution or the defense attorney. Each party has the right to call upon an expert advisor at his own expense.

The court may order commitment of the insane person to a mental institution only where it feels that the person is dangerous to the public security.

QUESTION 6 There are the following provisions with regard to the intoxicated defendant:

(a) If the person has been intoxicated involuntarily, that is, without his fault or privity, he may not be held responsible. In that case, Articles 34 and 36, paragraph 1, must apply.

(b) If a person has become intoxicated intentionally or negligently, he will be held responsible according to the provisions of Article 193 of the Criminal Code. Consequently, if the committed act is a major crime, he must be punished by imprisonment up to 2 years, or if it is a minor crime, up to 6 months. Furthermore, Article 35 provides that if a person contemplates committing a crime while in a normal mental situation but becomes intoxicated in order to accomplish it, such a crime must be regarded as committed intentionally.

QUESTION 7

Self-defense is discussed in Articles 22, 23, and 24 of the Criminal Code and is justified as a means of preserving justice. An act of self-defense requires three conditions to be met: (a) there must be an assault, (b) such an assault must be unlawful, and, (c) immediate.

The right to self-defense belongs not only to the person undergoing an atboek, but to anyone who attempts to avert an unlawful act. This is in accordance with the concept that defense is an independent means of protecting legal rights. Consequently, a person who acts to protect another from an unlawful assault, acts in defense even though the other person does not defend himself or ask for help.

Excessive Defense Self-defense is justified to the extent that it is necessary to avert an immediate assault. When it is excessive, it will be judged "in concreto" depending upon the type, the degree, and the nature of each case.

Article 25 provides that a person who exceeds the limits of self-defense or defense of another must be punshed. If the excessive self-defense is intentional, the perpetrator must be punished according to the provisions of Article 83 of the Criminal Code (mitigated punishment). If it is negligent, it is judged according to the provision on negligence (Article 28 of the Criminal Code). But the perpetrator must not be punished if he exceeds the limits of self-defense through fear or confusion.

Where a person provokes an assault by another, in order to act under the pretense of self-defense, in such a case, the provisions about self-defense are not applicable.

QUESTION 8 The offenses are classified as major crimes, minor crimes, and petty offenses. The purpose of this classification is significant both in the substantive criminal law and in criminal procedure. In substantive criminal law, these are the major points:

(A) Major crimes are never punished if negligently committed. Minor crimes which are negligently committed must be punished only where the law expressly provides. The petty offenses are punishable regardless of whether they are committed intentionally or negligently unless the law expressly requires intent.

(B) An attempt to commit a crime is punishable only in the case of major or minor offenses, never in the case of petty offenses.

(C) The accessories before the fact are punished only with regard to major and minor crimes; in the case of petty offenses only where the law expressly so provides

In criminal procedure: (a) the jurisdiction of a court over a crime will be determined according to the above-mentioned classification ; (b) the arrest and detention of a defendant is always called for in major crimes whereas in the other cases, it will depend upon the specific offense.

QUESTION 9

A court may order the execution of a sentence to be suspended if the de. fendant has not been convicted for a major or minor offense before, and the sentence imposed is not more than of one year's duration. The judge must consider the circumstances under which the offense took place as well as the personality and the conduct of the perpetrator after the act (Art. 100 of the Greek Criminal Code, hereafter assumed unless specified otherwise). The length of the suspension may not be less than three or more than five years (Art. 99).

Suspension of the imposition of the sentence is unknown.

The person so released is under no supervision, but if he commits a major or minor offense during the period specified in the decision of the court, and is convicted therefor, the suspension will be revoked. In such a case, the offender must serve both sentences consecutively (Art. 102).

The Code, as rule, provides for determinate sentences of imprisonment. The limits set therein are mandatory for the judge. Indeterminate sentences are provided for in the case of recidivist offenders (Art. 90). The judge is required to specify only the minimum of the sentence which may not be less than 3 years.

Term provisions are extended for special offenders. If such an offender is regarded as dangerous to the public, the court may impose an indeterminate imprisonment term (Arts. 89 and 92).

A convicted person may be released on parole under the conditions and procedure set out in Articles 104 to 110 of the Criminal Code. It is required that two-thirds of the serioze bare tres setmana de critte per riure derensritei god to carry te se os cocinenc: The AT Last sercizie De ST and ner de detect and it secal cirCUISISes ipie wat ze er #led law alading lite å jaren be granted. I: is riisi cerchiadas de imprese and lee with regard to be psce i zesdesce way of de ere i de par le ribe reroked if the pard.de eis a crime during the time specides in the deck sion of the car.

Legal extites are Des 19 erzina spection is there an sride equirsent to secca 3*3 irtee 17 of the Cossroon and Arsize 570d of the Code of Crisissi Precorre mere tis: a de decisions of the cours mast tedaOpre39078 inca in obie sessions.

Tbe stardor's set for de serie de semiczcesis disder corris rart. They der end upon the cris si sanurg of the aire ant in each arear case. An arate cari *ST Dot raise ide sentence ir 40 the Code of Crirical Printe

In the case intre ser ses the rear rus, sbe derintis of ide

per te gee in a crud parisheni consisting on anglebiai ode stezesi ciurtant parents Art. 4. If any of ite Conclusieverse the immunist: SES MISS. et anima Len at dette est fitezenciring, visitis Art. 91. par. S..

were a currin sesinizs II: DO: Delitosin is dissentert Deri tu Teniss Cse. The personalis and criminal menús Te as the esisto de dienden: ins: le COLsidered ore au carers.as reizei. A colition for the re.case of the corriped 10 is ite 971-::-ice iz sused. If suci a endise is mer let. tte er sicted pers se Tes the sustent. The arount of the tre is a de bine ei esideration of loh ile TITO ibe offense and the financial condi tion of ile de ticart.

GEISTI Vistato (of faris a depase roder tie cirrar stances seifai ir Artie so of the Criminal Core. The art par pries 1.1 & Jeran win lopett's sib't for an overse if be imos I misunderstands the fact that his act ca. stitutes the fact al eenents of a critre. The sane proris an alles illa ce case where a pery, ristabenis laelietes that the facts which constiinte an firmative deterse erist. eg. an ingression that an assault is ilmente !: is further sucified that if such igr. rance or risinderstanding is titled to the per son's negizence te mire Testos ibie according to the prorisiens there

It is provided in the same articie that tie perpetrator will not be responsible with regard to an incident which increases the gravity of the crime if he ignores that incident or misunderstands it.

Mistake of law appears in two forms: a) mistake as to whether an ai is punishabie that is whether a law exists and what the content of such iait is, and by mistake as to the illegal character of an act.

As far as the first case is concerned. mistake of law is not a defense. In the second case, a distinction must be made as to whether the mistake is eseusable or not. The listake is escusable when the perpetrator not only does not knes but cannot possius know the illegal nature of his act. In that case. there is no responsibility. But if the person could hare realized the illegal tature of his act, then that act is imputed as if intentionally committed.

QUESTIONS 11 AND 13 The Greek Criminal Code does not contain prorisions analogous to the questions 11 and 15 due to the reasn təat there is only one jurisdierie fer crinies conmitted within the country.

QUESTION 12 It is provided in Article 115 that if two or more persons commit a crime each one of them shall be deemed as a principal. Two elements are required for the make-up of the above crime: (a) common intent, and (b) common act. Common intent exists where all the particijants want the factual elements of a crime to be perpetrated and also l.now that the other perpetrator. or periietrators, bare the intention of committing the same crime.

ance with the concept that defense is an independent means of protecting legal rights. Consequently, a person who acts to protect another from an unlawful assault, acts in defense even though the other person does not defend himself or ask for help.

Ercessive Defense Self-defense is justified to the extent that it is necessary to avert an immediate assault. When it is excessive, it will be judged “in concreto" depending upon the type, the degree, and the nature of each case.

Article 25 provides that a person who exceeds the limits of self-defense or defense of another must be punshed. If the excessive self-defense is intentional, the perpetrator must be punished according to the provisions of Arti. cle 83 of the Criminal Code (mitigated punishment). If it is negligent, it is judged according to the provision on negligence (Article 28 of the Criminal Code). But the perpetrator must not be punished if he exceeds the limits of self-defense through fear or confusion.

Where a person provokes an assault by another, in order to act under the pretense of self-defense, in such a case, the provisions about self-defense are not applicable.

QUESTION 8 The offenses are classified as major crimes, minor crimes, and petty offenses. The purpose of this classification is significant both in the substantive criminal law and in criminal procedure. In substantive criminal law, these are the major points:

(A) Major crimes are never punished if negligently committed. Minor crimes which are negligently committed must be punished only where the law expressly provides. The petty offenses are punishable regardless of whether they are committed intentionally or negligentis unless the law expressly requires intent.

(B) An attempt to commit a crime is punishable only in the case of major or minor offenses, never in the case of petty offenses.

(0) The accessories before the fact are punished only with regard to major and minor crimes; in the case of petty offenses only where the law expressly so provides

In criminal procedure: (a) the jurisdiction of a court over a crime will be determined according to the above-mentioned classification; (b) the arrest and detention of a defendant is always called for in major crimes whereas in the other cases, it will depend upon the specific offense.

QUESTION

A court may order the execution of a sentence to be suspended if the defendant has not been convicted for a major or minor offense before, and the sentence imposed is not more than of one year's duration. The judge must consider the circumstances under which the offense took place as well as the personality and the conduct of the perpetrator after the act (Art. 100 of the Greek Criminal Code, hereafter assumed unless specified otherwise). The length of the suspension may not be less than three or more than five years (Art. 9:)).

Suspension of the imposition of the sentence is unknown.

The person so released is under no supervision, but if he commits a major or minor offense during the period specified in the decision of the court, and is convicted therefor, the suspension will be revoked. In such a case, the offender must serve both sentences consecutively (Art. 102).

The Code, as a rule, provides for determinate sentences of imprisonment. The limits set therein are mandatory for the judge. Indeterminate sentences are provided for in the case of recidivist offenders (Art. 90). The judge is required to specify only the minimum of the sentence which may not be less than 3 years.

Term provisions are extended for special offenders. If such an offender is regarded as dangerous to the public, the court may impose an indeterminate imprisonment term (Arts. 89 and 92).

A convicted person may be released on parole under the conditions and procedure set out in Articles 101 to 110 of the Criminal Code. It is required that two-thirds of the sentence have been served and that the convicted person have demonstrated good behavior during the time of his confinement. The court must scrutinize the history and character of the defendant and if special circumstances indicate that the parolee will lead a law abiding life, a parole will be granted. It is provided that certain obligations may be imposed on the parolee with regard to the place of residence, way of life, etc. The parole will be revoked if the parolee commits a crime during the time specified in the decision of the court.

Legal entities are not subject to criminal prosecution, nor is there an article equivalent to Section 3003. Article 117 of the Constitution and Article 510 (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure require that all the decisions of the courts must be duly supported by reasons and pronounced in public sessions.

The standards set for the review of the sentences by higher courts vary. They depend upon the timing and standing of the appellant in each particular case. An appellate court may not raise the sentence (Art. 470 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

In the case of multiple offenses, the perpetrator must, at the determination of the punishment, be sentenced to a compound punishment, consisting of an augmentation of the severest concurrent punishments (Art. 94). If any of the convictions is reversed, then the compound punishment must consist of an augmentation of the severest of the remaining punishments (Art. 94, par. 3).

Where a court imposes imprisonment not to exceed 6 months, it may, at its discretion, convert such punishment to a pecuniary one. The personality and criminal record as well as the financial condition of the defendant must be considered before any conversion is realized. A condition for the release of the convicted person is the payment of the fine imposed. If such a condition is not met, the convicted person serves the sentence. The amount of the fine is a combined consideration of both the gravity of the offense and the financial condition of the defendant.

QUESTION 10 Mistake of fact is a defense under the circumstances specified in Article 30 of the Criminal Code. The first part provides that a person will not be responsible for an oifense if he ignores or misunderstands the fact that his act constitutes the factual elements of a crime. The same provision applies in the case where a person mistakenly believes that the facts which constitute an affirmative defense exist, e.g., an impression that an assault is immediate. It is further specified that if such ignorance or misunderstanding is due to the person's negiigence, he will be responsible according to the provisions thereof.

It is provided in the same article that the perpetrator will not be responsible with regard to an incident which increases the gravity of the crime if he ignores that incident or misunderstands it.

Mistake of law appears in two forms: (a) mistake as to whether an act is punishable, that is, whether a law exists and what the content of such law is, and (b) mistake as to the illegal character of an act.

As far as the first case is concerned, mistake of law is not a defense. In the second case, a distinction must be made as to whether the mistake is excusable or not. The mistake is excusable when the perpetrator not only does not knew but cannot possibly know the illegal nature of his act. In that case, there is no responsibility. But if the person could have realized the illegal nature of his act, then that act is imputed as if intentionally committed.

QUESTIONS 11 AND 15

The Greek Criminal Code does not contain provisions analogous to the questions 11 and 15 due to the reason that there is only one jurisdiction over crimes committed within the country.

QUESTION 13

It is provided in Article 115 that if two or more persons commit a crime each one of them shall be deemed as a principal. Two elements are required for the make-up of the above crime: (a) common intent, and (b) common act. Common intent exists where all the particijiants want the factual elements of a crime to be perpetrated and also linow that the other perpetrator, or perpetrators, have the intention of committing the same crime.

« 이전계속 »