Navidezni idealni stek v teoriji in praksi

Naslovni institut predmetne magistrske naloge zakonsko ni urejen, temveč sta ga razvili in oblikovali kazenskopravna teorija in sodna praksa. Gre za situacijo, ko storilec z enim ravnanjem izpolni zakonske znake dveh ali več kaznivih dejanj. Pri tem se postavi vprašanje, ali je kaznovanje za vsa formalno uresničena kazniva dejanja tudi materialnopravno upravičeno. Storilec pri navideznem idealnem steku sicer res izpolni zakonske znake dveh ali več kaznivih dejanj, vendar na koncu odgovarja le za eno kaznivo dejanje. Med formalno uresničenimi kaznivimi dejanji se tako vzpostavi odnos navideznosti. V zvezi s tem so se v kazenskopravni teoriji oblikovali trije temeljni odnosi med kaznivimi dejanji, in sicer odnos specialnosti, odnos subsidiarnosti in odnos konsumpcije. Pri odnosu specialnosti izhajamo iz medsebojne primerjave dveh ali več kaznivih dejanj, pri čemer eno izmed kaznivih dejanj vsebuje enega ali več zakonskih znakov, ki so ožji, širši ali drugačni ter posledično konkretizirajo splošnejšo določbo. Pri odnosu subsidiarnosti je eno kaznivo dejanje le predhodna faza drugega kaznivega dejanja, pri čemer razmejitev med kaznivima dejanjema temelji na pravilu »lex primaria derogat legi subsidiariae«. Odnos konsumpcije med kaznivimi dejanji pa je podan, kadar se z logičnim primerjanjem zakonskih znakov kaznivih dejanj v steku na abstraktni ravni presoje ugotovi, da je kriminalna količina enega kaznivega dejanja vsebovana v kriminalni količini drugega. Magistrska naloga podrobneje obdela posamezne odnose med kaznivimi dejanji ter s pomočjo relevantne sodne prakse ponazori pojavnost in uporabo instituta navideznega idealnega steka v praksi. Hkrati so predstavljeni tudi različni pogledi domačih in tujih kazenskopravnih teoretikov na naslovni institut. The title institute of the subject master thesis is not regulated by law, but it has been developed by the criminal law theory and case law. It is a situation in which a perpetrator fulfills the legal signs of two or more offenses with one act. This raises the question of whether the punishment for all formally accomplished criminal offenses is also justified in material law. Perpetrator in the title institute actually fulfills the legal signs of two or more criminal offenses, but ultimately he is responsible for only one criminal offense. Relation of vituality is established between formally accomplished criminal offenses. In this regard, three fundamental relations between criminal offenses have been formulated in criminal law theory.. These relations are the relation of specialty, the relation of subsidiarity and the relation of the consumption. In the relation of specialty we come from a comparison of two or more criminal offenses, one of which contains one or more legal signs that are narrower, broader or different, and consequently concretize a more general provision. In relation of subsidiarity, one offense is only the preliminary phase of another offense, where the delimitation of offenses is based on the "lex primaria derogat legi subsidiariae" rule. The relation of consumption between criminal offenses is given when a logical comparison of the legal signs of criminal offenses in a concurrence at the abstract level of the audit reveals that the criminal amount of one criminal offense is contained in the criminal amount of the other. The master's thesis examines in detail the individual relations between the crimes and, through the relevant case-law illustrates the incidence and application of the concurrence institue practice. At the same time, different views of domestic and foreign criminal law theorists in connection with the title institute are presented.