Wrong suspicion

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The false suspicion is an offense of German criminal law , which is regulated in Section 164 of Section 164 of the Special Part of the Criminal Code (StGB) . The norm forbids consciously giving the untrue impression in front of a public body that someone else has committed a crime.

A prison sentence of up to five years or a fine can be imposed for false suspicion . The offense accounts for around 0.3% of all criminal offenses recorded by the police. In 2016, 16,762 false suspicions were reported.

Normalization

Since its last amendment on September 1, 2009, Section 164 of the Criminal Code has read as follows:

(1) Anyone who suspects another official or a military superior who is responsible for receiving reports or who is publicly against their better knowledge of an illegal act or a breach of duty with the intention of bringing about or continuing an official procedure or other official measures against him to let is punished with imprisonment of up to five years or with a fine.

(2) Anyone who, with the same intentions at one of the bodies referred to in paragraph 1 or publicly about another against his better judgment, makes any other assertion of a factual nature that is suitable for bringing about or continuing official proceedings or other official measures against him / her with the same intention shall also be punished allow.

(3) Anyone who commits the false suspicion in order to achieve a mitigation or waiver of punishment pursuant to Section 46b of this Act or Section 31 of the Narcotics Act will be punished with imprisonment of between six months and ten years . In less serious cases, the penalty is imprisonment from three months to five years.

Due to the threat of imprisonment of up to five years or a fine, the false suspicion according to Section 12 (2) StGB is an offense.

According to the prevailing view in jurisprudence, § 164 StGB pursues a double protective purpose . On the one hand, the standard protects the administration of justice from being misled and unnecessary claims. The argument for this is the systematic proximity of § 164 StGB to the offenses against the administration of justice. On the other hand, it protects those who are the subject of false suspicions from unjustified measures by the law enforcement authorities. For this it is stated that Section 165 of the Criminal Code refers to the person who is falsely suspected as the injured party. On the other hand, some voices argue that Section 164 of the Criminal Code is aimed exclusively at protecting the injured party or the administration of justice. This controversial issue is of practical importance in particular for the possibility of justifying consent of the wrongly suspected: If the offense serves solely to protect the suspect, the suspect's consent leads to the offender's impunity. If, on the other hand, the norm at least also protects the administration of justice, the suspect's consent is irrelevant for criminal liability under Section 164 of the Criminal Code.

History of origin

Section 133 of the Prussian Criminal Code of 1851 made false accusations a punishable offense. According to this, anyone who, contrary to their better judgment, accused someone of a criminal act or of breach of an official duty, made himself a criminal offense. The legislature adopted this norm in the penal code of the German Empire of 1871.

With effect from May 26, 1933, the content of the penal norm was revised. The legislature introduced an intentional requirement as an additional characteristic of the subjective fact and created the suspect's act of crime. He also added a second paragraph as a catch-all offense to Section 164, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code to curb the widespread denunciation of unpopular citizens with the aim of being sent to concentration camps , other forms of detention and other political persecution. The state measures aimed at by the perpetrator were not covered by the first paragraph, which had previously only been valid, as this was limited to certain forms of illegal activity. Finally, Section 164 (3) of the Criminal Code added a more stringent qualification that threatened a minimum imprisonment of three months if the perpetrator tried to gain an advantage for himself or for another person through the act. In Section 164 (5) of the Criminal Code, he added criminal liability for only conditionally intentional or reckless behavior, which was no longer included in the original offense due to the new requirement of intent.

At that time the standard had the following wording:

(1) Anyone who suspects another at an authority or an official or military superior responsible for receiving reports or publicly against his better knowledge of a criminal act or of breach of official or service duty with the intention of initiating official proceedings or other official measures against him bringing about or allowing it to continue is punishable by imprisonment not less than one month for false accusations.

(2) Anyone who, with the same intention, at one of the bodies specified in Paragraph 1 or publicly about another against his better knowledge, makes any other assertion of a factual nature that is suitable for bringing about official proceedings or other official measures against him or her, shall also be punished to continue.

(3) If the offense is committed with the intention of gaining an advantage for oneself or for a third party, the prison sentence shall not be less than three months.

(4) In addition to the penalty, a loss of civil rights can be recognized.

(5) If the false accusation (para. 1, 2) is not committed against better judgment, but intentionally or frivolously, the penalty is imprisonment of up to one year or a fine.

(6) As long as a process initiated as a result of the report is pending, the process and the decision on the false accusation should be paused.

With effect from September 1, 1969, the legislature limited the threat of punishment for an act under Section 164 of the Criminal Code to five years' imprisonment. He deleted paragraphs three to five from the offense without replacement. This eliminated the criminal liability for only conditionally intentional or frivolous actions. With effect from January 1, 1975, the legislature made some linguistic changes to the standard and introduced the possibility of imposing a fine instead of a prison sentence. Section 164, Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code was introduced as a qualification that makes it more severe with effect from September 1, 2009. In this way, the legislature wanted to prevent the abuse of leniency programs, which enable a participant in a criminal offense to mitigate his sentence if he testifies against the other participants, through false suspicions.

Objective fact

Victim of suspicion

A criminal liability according to § 164 StGB presupposes that the perpetrator accuses another person of misconduct. There is therefore no false suspect if the perpetrator brings himself under the false suspicion of a criminal offense. However, this can be punishable as faking a criminal offense under Section 145d StGB. The perpetrator must name the other person so precisely that they can be identified. A false suspicion is therefore out of the question, for example, if the perpetrator accuses an unspecified group of people, a fictitious or an unknown person of an act.

It is disputed whether only an innocent person can be considered a victim of false suspicion. The case law judges the falseness of a suspicion from an ex-post point of view. According to this, anyone who suspects a person who has committed a crime or a breach of duty with a false assertion of facts is not liable to prosecution for false suspicion. The offense of false suspicion within the meaning of Section 164 StGB is generally only fulfilled if the untrue accusation is directed towards an unlawful act, of which the perpetrator knows that the accused actually did not commit it.

According to the prevailing view in legal doctrine, the assumption of a false suspicion does not stand in the way of someone expressing a suspicion that is truthful with the help of false allegations or misleading evidence, since a guilty party should not be convicted with the help of false evidence.

Acts

Section 164 of the Criminal Code defines two alternative forms of commissioning false suspicion. Both have as their object that the perpetrator accuses another person of wrongdoing against his better judgment. Section 164 (1) of the Criminal Code covers the suspect of a criminal offense or a breach of duty. Section 164 (2) of the Criminal Code deals with making a false assertion that is suitable for initiating official proceedings. This offense is subsidiary to the more specific section 164 (1) of the Criminal Code.

Suspects, Section 164 (1) StGB

Jurisprudence defines the concept of suspect as evoking, diverting or reinforcing a suspicion . This can be done by explicitly making a factual assertion, for example by giving the name of someone else to the perpetrator who is caught in the act. A suspect can also take place through conclusive action, for example by the perpetrator, who testifies to another person's crime, omitting exonerating information. If the perpetrator limits himself to reproducing a factual assertion made by someone else, this constitutes a suspect if he adopts the other person's statement, for example by expressing his consent to it. According to the prevailing view in jurisprudence, manipulating an index can also constitute a suspect. This is known as isolated fictional evidence. After all, a suspect can lie in not taking action against the emergence of a false suspicion or in withholding exculpatory information. However, according to Section 13 (1) of the Criminal Code, such an omission is only a matter of fact if the perpetrator has the legal obligation to avert the suspicion. For example, by virtue of their parental responsibility ( Section 1626, Paragraph 1, Clause 1 of the Civil Code ) , parents must prevent their child from suspecting someone else.

A suspect does not constitute expressing an opinion , such as making a suspicion that a person was responsible or drawing wrong conclusions. Legitimate silence in criminal proceedings or denial of one's own involvement in a criminal act are also not part of the offense. Although this can lead to a suspicion against someone else arising or reinforced, so that according to the definition all the characteristics of a suspect are present, this is procedurally permissible behavior: Since the perpetrator is not obliged to incriminate himself , he may deny the allegation of an offense. Therefore, the prevailing view in jurisprudence uses a teleological reduction of the term suspect to remove silence and denial from Section 164 of the Criminal Code. In the case of denial, however, the perpetrator crosses the threshold of criminal liability if his behavior goes beyond mere defense, for example by manipulating evidence against someone else.

A criminal liability for false suspicion does not require that the perpetrator actually misleads the addressee of the suspicion. However, the suspicion must be suitable for bringing about an official measure against another. Criminal proceedings can, for example , be initiated in accordance with Section 152 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) as soon as the authority has initial suspicion of having committed a criminal offense that can be legally prosecuted. If a procedure has already been initiated, a suspicion is a factual element if it can lead to the procedure being extended.

The subject of Section 164 (1) StGB is the suspect with regard to an illegal act or a breach of duty. The latter is a violation that can be punished under public service law. According to Section 11 (1) number 5 of the Criminal Code, the former is an act that constitutes the offense of a criminal law. The suspect of an administrative offense therefore does not fall under Section 164 (1) of the Criminal Code .

A suspicion that is objectively untrue is false. This applies to the exaggeration of an act actually committed if the perpetrator thereby changes the character of the act at the expense of the suspect. This applies, for example, if, instead of the realization of just a basic offense, he claims to have committed a qualified offense, such as a serious robbery ( Section 250 StGB) instead of a simple robbery actually committed ( Section 249 StGB). A statement that incompletely describes a situation is also wrong.

The suspicion must be made against an authority, an official authorized to receive reports or a military superior. Any body that exercises public authority can be considered an authority. According to the prevailing view in jurisprudence, § 164 StGB also covers foreign authorities. Some legal scholars object to this that Section 164 of the Criminal Code aims solely to protect the domestic administration of justice. According to Section 158 (1) StPO, members of the public prosecutor's office and the police are authorized to receive reports . Alternatively, the perpetrator can express the suspicion publicly, i.e. in front of an indefinite group of people.

Making allegations, Section 164 (2) StGB

Section 164 (2) of the Criminal Code covers assertions of fact that do not fall under Section 164 (1) of the StGB. The offense presupposes that the perpetrator makes a factual assertion. In contrast to Section 164 (1) of the Criminal Code, it is therefore not sufficient to simply arouse suspicion, for example by manipulating circumstantial evidence, it is necessary for the perpetrator to express a suspicion.

Section 164 (2) StGB is further formulated than Section 164 (1) StGB with regard to the subject of suspicion: The standard is not limited to the suspicion of a criminal offense or an official offense, but rather covers all circumstances the allegation of which is suitable for bringing about an official measure against a person or let it persist. Thus, for example, someone else's suspect with regard to the commission of an administrative offense falls under Section 164 (2) of the Criminal Code.

In the alternative offense of paragraph 2, in addition to the offense against the authorities of paragraph 1, the 'public' allegation is also made a criminal offense. In this respect, it is sufficient for a false suspicion under paragraph 2 if someone publicly makes such concrete allegations that, for example, an administrative offense procedure could be initiated against another.

Subjective fact

Pursuant to Section 15 of the Criminal Code, criminal liability for false suspicion requires that the perpetrator acts with at least conditional intent with regard to the objective offense . To do this, he must approve of the fact that he is aware of all the circumstances of the offense and that his actions are suitable for initiating official proceedings against another person.

Furthermore, the perpetrator must know that his suspicion is untrue. If the perpetrator merely erroneously assumes that his statement is untrue, he will commit an unpunished attempt to make false suspicions.

Ultimately, the perpetrator must act with the intention of bringing about or continuing an official procedure against the suspect. The term intention generally describes a targeted will of the perpetrator. According to the prevailing opinion, however, § 164 StGB does not require such a will. It is sufficient if the perpetrator knows that a procedure is being initiated or continued through his actions, since it is irrelevant for the protective purposes pursued by Section 164 StGB whether the perpetrator is striving for aptitude to bring about a procedure or simply knows about it. If the suspicion falls on someone other than the one expected by the perpetrator, this misconception is irrelevant according to the prevailing view in jurisprudence, since the functioning of the administration of justice is equally impaired in this case.

Litigation and sentencing

A false suspicion is complete as soon as the addressee of the suspicion has the opportunity to take note of it. This applies as soon as it is received . If the perpetrator is convicted of false suspicion, which was committed publicly or by disseminating documents, this can be made public at the request of the injured party in accordance with Section 165 of the Criminal Code. The execution of the announcement is based on § 463c StPO.

If the false suspicion leads to an authority initiating a procedure, the public prosecutor's office should refrain from bringing charges on account of false suspicion in accordance with Section 154e (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure until this procedure has been completed. This is to avoid contradicting decisions being made due to parallel proceedings.

Active repentance

Section 164 of the Criminal Code does not regulate the possibility of mitigating or excluding punishment through active repentance . According to the widespread opinion in jurisprudence, however, the corresponding provision for testimony offenses , Section 158 of the Criminal Code, applies analogously to false suspicion. According to this, the offender can obtain mitigation if he corrects his statement before it leads to damage. On the other hand, the provisions on the assessment of sentences of Section 258 of the Criminal Code, according to which the perpetrator does not make himself liable if he wants to prevent the punishment of himself or a family member by the act, do not apply analogously .

Qualification, Section 164 Paragraph 3 StGB

Pursuant to Section 164 (3) of the Criminal Code, the minimum penalty for the perpetrator increases if he commits the false suspicion in order to achieve a mitigation or waiver of punishment under Section 46b of the Criminal Code or Section 31 of the Narcotics Act . With this, the legislature wanted to prevent people from gaining the privilege of being a key witness by falsely accusing another person. This purpose is an intention, so it must be the primary motivation of the offender.

Law competitions

If further offenses are committed in connection with an act under Section 164 of the Criminal Code, these are in legal competition to create false suspicion . A unit of offense ( Section 52 of the Criminal Code) comes into consideration due to the spatial and temporal connection, in particular with other offenses of expression, such as false unofficial testimony ( Section 153 of the Criminal Code), perjury ( Section 154 of the Criminal Code), insults ( Section 185 of the Criminal Code) and defamation ( § 187 StGB). The offense of feigning a criminal offense ( § 145d StGB) is formally subsidiary to false suspicion. The persecution of innocent people ( § 344 StGB) takes second place behind § 164 StGB.

According to jurisprudence, between § 164 StGB and a false, unofficial testimony, election determination is possible if it is certain in criminal proceedings that the perpetrator committed one of these crimes, but it is uncertain which one.

criminology

The Federal Criminal Police Office annually publishes statistics on all criminal offenses reported in Germany, the police crime statistics . The entire federal territory has been covered since 1993. The statistics from 1991 and 1992 included the old federal states and all of Berlin. Earlier statistics only cover the old federal states.

In 2016, the police recorded 16,762 false suspicions.

Legal situation in other states

In Swiss criminal law, the offense of Section 164 Paragraph 1 StGB corresponds to the offense of false accusation , which is punishable by imprisonment or a fine according to Art. 303 StGB. Art. 303 StGB aims to protect two legal interests: the administration of criminal justice against unjustified claims as well as the individual or unjustified criminal prosecution.

In Austrian criminal law, cases that are considered to be false suspicions under German law are regarded as defamation in accordance with Section 297 of the Criminal Code . According to this, anyone who, contrary to their better judgment, exposes another person to the risk of official prosecution by wrongly suspecting him of an act that is to be prosecuted ex officio or of a breach of an official or professional obligation is liable to prosecution.

literature

  • Thomas Fischer: Criminal Code with subsidiary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 .
  • Kristian Kühl : § 164. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  • Stefan Maier: § 164 . In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (Ed.): Criminal Code: Comment . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 .
  • Klaus Rogall, Hans-Joachim Rudolphi: § 164 . In: Jürgen Wolter (Ed.): SK-StGB - Systematic Commentary on the Criminal Code . 9th edition. 3: Sections 80–173 StGB. Carl Heymanns, Cologne 2017, ISBN 978-3-452-28305-4 .
  • Wolfgang Ruß: § 164 . In: Heinrich Laufhütte (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 6: §§ 146-210 . De Gruyter, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-89949-764-9 .
  • Thomas Vormbaum: § 164 . In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  • Jan Zopfs: § 164 . In: Klaus Miebach (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 3. Edition. tape 3 : §§ 80-184j. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-68553-8 .

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. Federal Law Gazette 2009 Part I No. 48, issued on July 31, 2009, page 2288.
  2. BGHSt 14, 242 (244).
  3. ^ Rudolf Rengier: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against the person and the general public . 17th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-68815-7 , § 50, Rn. 1.
  4. Thomas Vormbaum: § 164 , Rn. 9-10. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  5. Klaus Rogall, Hans-Joachim Rudolphi: § 164 , Rn. 1. In: Jürgen Wolter (Ed.): SK-StGB - Systematic Commentary on the Criminal Code . 9th edition. 3: Sections 80–173 StGB. Carl Heymanns, Cologne 2017, ISBN 978-3-452-28305-4 .
  6. Jan Zopfs: § 164 , Rn. 3-4. In: Klaus Miebach (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 3. Edition. tape 3 : §§ 80-184j. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-68553-8 .
  7. Wolfgang Ruß: § 164 , Rn. 2. In: Heinrich Laufhütte (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 6: §§ 146-210 . De Gruyter, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-89949-764-9 .
  8. Thomas Vormbaum: § 164 , Rn. 3. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  9. Jan Zopfs: § 164 , Rn. 8. In: Klaus Miebach (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 3. Edition. tape 3 : §§ 80-184j. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-68553-8 .
  10. Thomas Vormbaum: § 164 , Rn. 5. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  11. a b Jan Zopfs: § 164 , Rn. 9. In: Klaus Miebach (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 3. Edition. tape 3 : §§ 80-184j. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-68553-8 .
  12. ^ Rudolf Rengier: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against the person and the general public . 17th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-68815-7 , § 50, Rn. 22nd
  13. Stefan Maier: § 164 , Rn. 3. In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 .
  14. BGHSt 13, 219 (220).
  15. BGHSt 35, 50 .
  16. ^ Higher Regional Court Rostock, judgment of November 8, 2004, 1 Ss 364/04 I 138/04 = New Journal for Criminal Law 2005, p. 335.
  17. OLG Düsseldorf, judgment of September 30, 1998, 1 Ws 491/98.
  18. Gerd Geilen, Basic questions of false suspicion (§ 164 StGB) . In: Jura 1984, p. 300 (302-303).
  19. ^ Rudolf Rengier: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against the person and the general public . 17th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-68815-7 , § 50, Rn. 12.
  20. Thomas Vormbaum: § 164 , Rn. 84. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  21. Jan Zopfs: § 164 , Rn. 10. In: Klaus Miebach (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 3. Edition. tape 3 : §§ 80-184j. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-68553-8 .
  22. BGHSt 14, 240 (246).
  23. BGHSt 18, 204 .
  24. OLG Karlsruhe, judgment of May 9, 1996, 1 ​​Ss 120/95 = Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, Jurisprudence Report 1997, p. 37 (38).
  25. Jan Zopfs: § 164 , Rn. 28. In: Klaus Miebach (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 3. Edition. tape 3 : §§ 80-184j. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-68553-8 .
  26. RGSt 69, 173 (175).
  27. Kristian Kühl: § 164 , Rn. 4 . In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  28. Jan Zopfs: § 164 , Rn. 27. In: Klaus Miebach (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 3. Edition. tape 3 : §§ 80-184j. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-68553-8 .
  29. OLG Düsseldorf, decision of August 21, 1991, 5 Ss 232/91 - 76/91 I. in: Neue Zeitschrift für Verkehrsrecht.
  30. Frank-Thomas Bienko: Again: On the criminal liability of an agreed false suspicion in connection with traffic accidents . In: New Journal for Traffic Law 1993, p. 98.
  31. Paul Krell, Thoughts on the impunity of lying accused in §§ 145d, 164 StGB . In: Höchst Judicial Jurisdiction in Criminal Law 2015, p. 484.
  32. Stefan Maier: § 164 , Rn. 15. In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 .
  33. Jan Zopfs: § 164 , Rn. 32. In: Klaus Miebach (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 3. Edition. tape 3 : §§ 80-184j. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-68553-8 .
  34. Thomas Vormbaum: § 164 , Rn. 49. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  35. Wolfgang Ruß: § 164 , Rn. 11. In: Heinrich Laufhütte (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 6: §§ 146-210 . De Gruyter, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-89949-764-9 .
  36. Jan Zopfs: § 164 , Rn. 11. In: Klaus Miebach (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 3. Edition. tape 3 : §§ 80-184j. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-68553-8 .
  37. Wolfgang Ruß: § 164 , Rn. 22. In: Heinrich Laufhütte (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 6: §§ 146-210 . De Gruyter, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-89949-764-9 .
  38. Jan Zopfs: § 164 , Rn. 42. In: Klaus Miebach (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 3. Edition. tape 3 : §§ 80-184j. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-68553-8 .
  39. ^ Rudolf Rengier: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against the person and the general public . 17th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-68815-7 , § 50, Rn. 10.
  40. Jan Zopfs: § 164 , Rn. 43. In: Klaus Miebach (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 3. Edition. tape 3 : §§ 80-184j. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-68553-8 .
  41. Wolfgang Ruß: § 164 , Rn. 31. In: Heinrich Laufhütte (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 6: §§ 146-210 . De Gruyter, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-89949-764-9 .
  42. BGHSt 9, 240 (242).
  43. Jan Zopfs: § 164 , Rn. 14. In: Klaus Miebach (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 3. Edition. tape 3 : §§ 80-184j. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-68553-8 .
  44. Stefan Maier: § 164 , Rn. 51. In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 .
  45. Kristian Kühl: § 164, Rn. 50. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  46. Theodor Lenckner, Nikolaus Bosch: § 164, Rn. 35. In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  47. Jan Zopfs: § 164 , Rn. 47. In: Klaus Miebach (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 3. Edition. tape 3 : §§ 80-184j. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-68553-8 .
  48. Stefan Maier: § 164 , Rn. 44-45. In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (Ed.): Criminal Code: Comment . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 .
  49. BGHSt 32, 146 (149).
  50. Police crime statistics. (No longer available online.) Federal Criminal Police Office, archived from the original on April 23, 2018 ; accessed on September 21, 2017 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.bka.de
  51. ^ Report on police crime statistics 2016. (PDF) (No longer available online.) Federal Ministry of the Interior, p. 116 , archived from the original on January 16, 2018 ; accessed on January 16, 2018 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.bmi.bund.de