Dangerous bodily harm (Germany)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The grievous bodily harm is in German criminal law a criminal offense is that in the 17th section of the Special Section of the Criminal Code (CC) in § 224 is normalized Criminal Code. He is one of the crimes of bodily harm .

The penal norm was inserted into the StGB in 1876. It represents an aggravating qualification of the bodily harm regulated in Section 223 of the Criminal Code . Section 224 of the Criminal Code consists of several offenses in which the offender's act of infringement poses a greater risk to the physical integrity of the victim than the basic offense under Section 223 of the Criminal Code. These qualifications include, for example, using a weapon and attacking from an ambush .

Dangerous bodily harm is threatened with imprisonment from six months to ten years, in less serious cases from three months to five years.

Both in Germany and elsewhere in the western world , the frequency of cases has been falling for years , while the willingness to report is increasing.

Normalization

The offense of dangerous bodily harm is standardized in Section 224 of the Criminal Code and has been as follows since its last change on April 1, 1998:

(1) Who the assault

  1. by introducing poison or other harmful substances,
  2. by means of a weapon or other dangerous tool ,
  3. by means of a deceitful attack,
  4. jointly with another party or
  5. by means of life-threatening treatment

commits, is punished with imprisonment of six months to ten years, in less serious cases with imprisonment of three months to five years.

(2) The attempt is punishable.

Since the minimum sentence is less than one year in prison, the offense is a misdemeanor according to Section 12 (2) StGB . As with the basic offense of bodily harm ( Section 223 StGB), the protected legal interest of Section 224 of the Criminal Code is physical integrity. In contrast to simple bodily harm, dangerous bodily harm is prosecuted ex officio as an official offense , regardless of whether a criminal complaint has been made .

History of origin

The offense of dangerous bodily harm was newly introduced in 1876 as a qualification of bodily harm under Section 223a in the Reich Criminal Code . The reason for this was the gaping gap between simple bodily harm and serious bodily harm ( Section 226 of the Criminal Code) with regard to the criminality of the respective offenses. A conviction for grievous bodily harm, the minimum sentence of which is one year imprisonment, required a qualified result of the injury, such as the loss of hearing . In cases in which such a success was lacking, but the unworthiness of action was nevertheless high due to a particularly brutal approach by the perpetrator, the scope of Section 223 of the Criminal Code, which extended to three years' imprisonment, appeared to be the maximum penalty for simple bodily harm five years higher), too scarce.

The newly created § 223a StGB read as follows in the version of its introduction: Is the bodily harm committed by means of a weapon, in particular a knife or other dangerous tool, or by means of a deceitful attack, or by several people jointly, or by means of treatment that endangers life so does not go to prison for less than two months.

In June 1912 a further paragraph was added to Section 223a of the Criminal Code. This supplement described a behavior that is made punishable in a similar form by the current crime of mistreatment of wards ( § 225 S tGB). It qualifies a bodily harm that is committed against a minor or a person defenseless because of illness or frailty, in whose favor the perpetrator had a duty of protection. The law of May 26, 1933 relocated this provision to the independent Section 223b of the Criminal Code, the forerunner of today's Section 225 of the Criminal Code.

On September 1, 1969, an amendment to Section 223a of the Criminal Code came into force, which had previously only been implemented by the general provision of Section 54 of the Criminal Code, Paragraph 2a. F. StGB limited maximum sentence to three years imprisonment.

With the Introductory Act to the Criminal Code , Section 223a (2) of the Criminal Code made attempting dangerous bodily harm a punishable offense with effect from January 1, 1975 . The legislature wanted to avoid gaps in criminal liability that resulted from the deletion of some potentially dangerous qualification acts. This included, for example, chasing dogs after people. As part of this amendment to the law, the minimum penalty of two months was lifted. However, this was reintroduced by the Crime Prevention Act of October 28, 1994 and increased to three months.

As part of the sixth penal reform law, which came into force on January 26, 1998, the crimes of bodily harm were extensively revised. Section 223a was renamed to Section 224 , whereby the qualifying features of the old facts were retained. Initially, the legislature planned to reformulate the qualifying elements into standard examples . These are exemplary cases that only suggest a higher punishment to the judge without binding him. However, following criticism from some experts, this draft was rejected by the legislature. The criminal offense of poisoning , which had previously been regulated separately, was integrated into the classification of dangerous bodily harm . The reform went hand in hand with an increase in the sentence to imprisonment from six months to ten years. In return, a less severe case was standardized, to which the previously valid maximum penalty of dangerous bodily harm of five years was assigned. In addition, the offense was removed from the group of private criminal offenses .

Objective fact

Section 224 (1) StGB finally lists some forms of inspection for dangerous bodily harm, which are divided into five numbers. Their distinguishing feature is the increased probability that the victim will suffer significant injuries as a result of the crime. The common prerequisite for all qualifying forms of inspection is the presence of completed bodily harm in accordance with Section 223 (1) StGB.

By bringing in poison or other harmful substances

The first qualifying form of inspection describes an injury that the perpetrator uses a substance that is harmful to health to cause. The constituent elements of this qualification are based on the earlier Section 229 of the Criminal Code, the offense of poisoning .

A harmful substance is a substance that is capable of causing considerable damage to the human body. The standard names poison as a special harmful substance . In jurisprudence, poison is defined as an organic or inorganic substance which, under certain conditions, can cause considerable damage to health through its chemical or chemical-physical effects. The harmfulness is assessed on the basis of the specific case. Therefore, even with normal use, non-hazardous substances, which only pose a risk to the body from a certain dose, can be classified as harmful. For example, the Federal Court of Justice affirmed the use of a poison in the administration of a lethal amount of table salt to a small child. Arsenic , potassium cyanide , hydrogen cyanide and thorn apple seeds were also rated as poison .

Other harmful substances are those which, through mechanical or thermal effects, are able to cause or increase a significant pathological condition of the body. This includes, for example, alcohol in large quantities, bacteria , viruses , hot liquids and shattered glass .

Because of the increased threat of punishment compared to the basic offense, the health impairment must be of considerable weight. If the harmful substance therefore only leads to minor injuries, the qualification is not realized. For example, the Dresden Higher Regional Court assessed pouring hot coffee over the head as insufficient as it only caused superficial scalds.

Teaching requires establishing a connection between the harmful substance and the body so that the harmful effects of the agent can unfold. Exemplary actions include ingestion, injection, instillation, inhalation or application to the skin. According to a view that tries to restrict the application of Section 224, Paragraph 1, Number 1 of the Criminal Code, this must be done in such a way that the substance unfolds its dangerous effect from within. The objection to this restriction is that it is not specified in the wording of the standard. In addition, it is hardly possible to differentiate clearly between external and internal effects. In the opinion of the Federal Court of Justice, an external influence is sufficient if it creates health hazards that are equivalent to internal effects in terms of weight.

Using a weapon or other dangerous tool

As a weapon objects are not only useful, but also destined to the nature of their production, to hurt people by their action. Exemplary are shot , slashing and thrusting weapons .

The weapons are a subset of the dangerous tools . This term describes objects that, due to their objective nature, can cause considerable physical injuries through their specific use. Almost anything can be considered for this. For example, a wooden slat or a baseball bat can be dangerous tools when used appropriately . Dishes also assessed a burning cigarette that was stubbed out on a person's face, a salami , a boot that was repeatedly badly kicked with, and a scarf used to choke as a constituent element of the offense . An animal , such as a dog that has been agitated , can also be a dangerous tool because of the criminal law equality of things and animals. However, the Federal Court of Justice denied the presence of a dangerous tool in a car approaching a person , in which the person is only injured by avoiding the approaching car. The court argued that the tool must cause the injury immediately, which would not be the case with an evasive injury. This decision met with criticism in legal theory because the indirect effect on the body through the use of the vehicle had also led to an increased risk of injury to the victim, which is why the perpetrator was realizing the injustice of dangerous bodily harm.

The use of immovable objects, for example by pushing against a brick wall, is not sufficient. The Federal Court of Justice decided that subsuming an immovable object under the term tool would exceed the wording of the standard. The same applies to human body parts, so that a boxer's fist, for example, is not a tool despite the increased danger it poses. However, tools can be prostheses if they are used as impact tools. A shod foot can be a dangerous tool if the shoe can cause above-average injuries, which is the case, for example, with a shoe with steel toecaps.

Objects that are not intended to be used to cause injury, such as scissors that a hairdresser uses to cut hair or a scalpel that a surgeon uses for a therapeutic procedure, are not relevant.

By means of a cunning attack

A hold-up is a sudden attack on someone who is unsuspecting. This is insidious if the perpetrator acts in a manner that hides his true intentions in order to make it difficult for the victim to defend himself.

The offense is fulfilled, for example, by lying in wait, sneaking up on or pretending to be kind to the victim. It is also possible to lure the victim to a place where his or her ability to defend himself is limited. An attack usually also occurs if the perpetrator uses a poison within the meaning of Section 224, Paragraph 1, Number 1 of the Criminal Code, since the victim does not usually consciously consume it. However, the qualification is not already fulfilled by the perpetrator taking advantage of an element of surprise, since there is no targeted concealment of the impending attack.

Unlike the first two variants, the qualification does not require that the physical injury is of an increased severity. The increased threat of punishment is justified by the increased risk potential that arises from an attack on a victim who is not fully ready to defend himself. Therefore, the standard has the character of an abstract dangerous offense .

Jointly with another party

The bodily harm is committed jointly with another person involved if the perpetrator cooperates with another person at the scene of the crime . This qualification also has the character of an abstract endangering offense. The qualifying danger of this factual modality is, on the one hand, that the victim's defense can be made more difficult by the involvement of several attackers. Second, multiple attackers can injure the victim more severely. Due to these circumstances, the qualification requires that at least two people on the perpetrator's side are present at the crime scene at the time of the attack. On the other hand, it is not necessary for everyone involved to act in violation of the law. Therefore, according to the prevailing opinion, participants in the sense of the norm are both persons who contributed to the crime and those who only contribute to the contribution of a participant , i.e. an instigator or assistant .

The fact that a participant contribution is sufficient is partly disputed in jurisprudence with the argument that this contradicts the concept of jointly , which suggests that several perpetrators work together. On the basis of the old version of the standard, which only spoke of a joint approach, the case law only assumed joint bodily harm when a perpetrator and a participant acted together in exceptional cases. However, after the legislature changed Section 224, Paragraph 1, Number 4 of the Criminal Code to the effect that the involvement of another party is also part of the offense, the Federal Court of Justice refrained from making this restrictive assessment. According to Section 28 Paragraph 1 Clause 2 StGB, perpetrators and participants are considered to be involved. For example, he regularly affirms the factual status if the participant reinforces the effect of the act of bodily harm through his contribution.

Another opposing position rejects the inclusion of participants in the scope of Section 224, Paragraph 1, Number 4 of the Criminal Code, arguing that the high level of punishment of the norm is only appropriate if at least two people who contributed to the perpetration work together. The Federal Court of Justice, on the other hand, makes it sufficient if the participant provides the perpetrator with sufficient psychological support through his presence at the crime scene. He argues that the presence of the participant at the scene of the crime suggests to the victim a willingness to support the non-physically attacking party. This reduces the victim's ability to defend himself, as he does not know whether he or she should expect a physical attack from the person involved.

The parties involved must act with knowledge of one another. Since it is an abstract endangering offense, the offense can also be fulfilled if the involvement of several people does not increase the severity of the injuries. In addition, it is not necessary for the victim to recognize that he is facing several attackers. After all, this is irrelevant for the objective danger of one of several attacks.

By means of a life-threatening treatment

Life-endangering treatment is an exposure that is capable of endangering the life of the victim. It is controversial whether this risk must be of a concrete nature, i.e. whether the victim is actually in mortal danger, or whether it is sufficient if the offender's act of injury is typically associated with mortal danger. This dispute is based on the question of the extent to which a purely abstract danger to life justifies the increased threat of punishment.

Those legal scholars who call for a specific life endangerment argue that the sentence under Section 224 of the Criminal Code is extraordinarily high and does not sufficiently take into account the different potential dangers of violent acts. This deficiency should therefore be countered with a restrictive interpretation of the standard. Therefore, the realization of the qualification is only appropriate if the victim's life is in real danger.

According to the opposite view, which is also represented by the case law, on the other hand, the general danger to life of the infringing act is sufficient. Representatives of this view argue that the legislature in Section 224 of the Criminal Code qualified the offender's actions, which generally lead to increased dangers. In addition, the wording does not speak of causing a mortal danger, but of a life-threatening act of injury on the part of the perpetrator.

The case law rated life-threatening treatments as throwing into ice-cold water, throttling with a seat belt, severe blows to the head, being infected with the HI virus , knife wounds, kneeling on the chest and dragging a person along on an accelerating vehicle. She also classified kicks in the stomach of a pregnant woman as a life-threatening act within the meaning of Section 224 (1) number 5 of the Criminal Code.

Subjective fact

Pursuant to Section 15 of the Criminal Code, criminal liability for dangerous bodily harm requires that the perpetrator act with at least conditional intent with regard to the objective facts . To do this, he must recognize the circumstances of the offense and accept the realization of the facts. In the case of numbers 1 and 2, this requires that the perpetrator records the circumstances from which the increased danger of the crime results. In the case of number 5, according to the case law, it is sufficient for the assumption of intent that the perpetrator recognizes the circumstances that justify the mortal danger for the victim. A more restrictive view also requires that the perpetrator becomes aware that the life of the victim is at risk.

attempt

Attempting to cause dangerous bodily harm is a criminal offense. It is true that § 224 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code only a misdemeanor is, the criminal liability of the experiment is not so in § 23 paragraph 1 Version 1 of the Criminal Code provides. Section 224 (2) of the Criminal Code, however, expressly orders criminal offenses against attempts.

Litigation and sentencing

The termination of the act begins with the onset of the bodily harm effect. From this point in time, the statute of limitations begins , which is ten years in accordance with Section 78 Paragraph 3 Number 3 StGB. In contrast to the basic offense, no criminal complaint is required for the criminal prosecution of dangerous bodily harm . The offense is in accordance with § 112a paragraph 1 point 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure any of the cases, which fall in re-offending , the arrangement of pre-trial detention permit.

Law competitions

If further crimes are committed in connection with an act under Section 224 of the Criminal Code, these are in legal competition for dangerous bodily harm . Often this occurs in connection with other crimes of assault and homicide.

If the offender realizes several alternative offenses under Section 224 (1) of the Criminal Code through one act , these constitute a qualified act of bodily harm. Dangerous bodily harm supersedes simple bodily harm as a qualification. Compared to completed homicides, dangerous bodily harm takes a back seat through subsidiarity . However, if the homicidal offense does not get beyond the experimental stage while the bodily harm offense is being completed, there is a unity between the two offenses ( Section 52 StGB). Unity of offense also comes with sexual coercion ( § 177 StGB), serious bodily harm ( § 226 StGB), mistreatment of wards ( § 225 StGB), bodily harm resulting in death ( § 227 StGB) and participation in a brawl ( § 231 StGB).

The variant of life-threatening treatment named in Section 224 (1) number 5 of the Criminal Code is being replaced by specific life-threatening situations that are contained in several offenses, such as serious robbery ( Section 250 (2) of the Criminal Code) and particularly serious arson ( Section 306b (2) number 1 StGB). If the perpetrator poisons his victim with narcotics, the criminal liability under Section 224 (1) number 1 of the Criminal Code takes a back seat to the more specific criminal provisions of the Narcotics Act .

criminology

Recorded cases of dangerous and serious bodily harm in the years 1987–2019 as a frequency number per 100,000 inhabitants. (Criminal offense code 222000)

The police crime statistics of the Federal Criminal Police Office summarizes reports on "Dangerous and serious bodily harm, mutilation of female genitalia Sections 224, 226, 226a, 231 StGB" under the crime code 222000. When looking at the figures, it should be noted that a police charge does not have to be identical to the legal assessment.

The number of offenses increased between 1988 and 2007, then fell until 2014, increased in 2015 and 2016, and has since fallen again. In the year of the peak of 2007 there were 154,849 cases, in 2019 it was 133,084. The increase in the meantime is also attributed to increased investigative activity by the police and a greater willingness of the population to report violent crime. Since 1993, the percentage of reported offenses that remain in the experimental stage has risen almost continuously. The clearance rate has been at a comparatively high level since 1987 at over 80%.

In 2016, around 84% of the perpetrators were male. Almost 30% of the crimes were committed under the influence of alcohol. The number of young suspects has increased since the 2000s, which is also attributed to the fact that young people appear more often in gangs and thus often implement Section 224 (1) number 4 of the Criminal Code.

Less than one percent of the crimes are committed with a firearm. By 1999, the use of firearms had risen to 592 cases and then fell again. In 2019 there were 189 cases.

Since knife attacks have not yet been recorded separately in all federal states, there is still no nationwide data on their share in the reported dangerous and serious physical injuries. From January 1, 2020, the phenomenon of "knife attacks" will be recorded nationwide in the PKS.

Especially in Western countries one is over long periods of relatively synchronous crime decline , especially in violent crime and theft well documented. In those countries that have been collecting data for many years, it became clear that the willingness of victims to file a complaint was increasing everywhere. The dark field therefore decreases.

Changes in reporting behavior, legal changes, an extended registration by the police and the reduced social tolerance towards violence led to a significant increase in the number of cases in the crime statistics compared to the actual incidents in all developed countries. The current decline is underestimated and the previous increase is overestimated.

Police crime statistics for dangerous and serious bodily harm in the Federal Republic of Germany
recorded cases with gun
year all in all per 100,000 inhabitants tries shot threatened Clearance rate
1987 63,711 104.2 4,074 (6.4%) 265 1,535 84.1%
1988 62,889 102.4 4,298 (6.8%) 247 1,480 84.1%
1989 64,840 104.6 4,249 (6.6%) 228 1,327 83.5%
1990 67,095 107.0 4,174 (6.2%) 227 1,368 82.6%
1991 73.296 112.7 4,298 (5.9%) 294 1,398 80.6%
1992 77,160 117.3 4,800 (6.2%) 382 1,797 80.7%
1993 87,784 108.4 5,061 (5.8%) 439 2,378 80.1%
1994 88,037 108.2 5,340 (6.1%) 493 2,280 81.3%
1995 95,759 117.4 6,023 (6.3%) 536 2,478 81.7%
1996 101,333 123.9 6,594 (6.5%) 553 2,619 83.2%
1997 106.222 129.5 6,922 (6.5%) 522 2,508 82.5%
1998 110.277 134.4 7,690 (7.0%) 535 2,289 83.6%
1999 114,516 139.6 8,322 (7.3%) 592 2,300 83.9%
2000 116.912 142.3 8,866 (7.6%) 580 2.159 83.9%
2001 120,345 146.3 9,042 (7.5%) 473 1,715 83.8%
2002 126,932 154.0 9,596 (7.6%) 492 1,707 84.6%
2003 132,615 160.7 10,141 (7.6%) 441 1,844 84.1%
2004 139,748 169.3 10,790 (7.7%) 389 1,546 84.2%
2005 147.122 178.3 12,151 (8.3%) 418 1,492 83.5%
2006 150,874 183.0 12,953 (8.6%) 352 1,357 83.2%
2007 154,849 188.1 13,589 (8.8%) 350 1,337 82.5%
2008 151.208 183.9 15,347 (10.1%) 279 1,084 82.3%
2009 149.301 182.1 15,730 (10.5%) 214 1,098 82.2%
2010 142.903 174.7 15,799 (11.1%) 202 931 82.3%
2011 139.091 170.1 16,085 (11.6%) 153 947 82.3%
2012 136.077 166.3 16,524 (12.1%) 169 769 81.4%
2013 127,869 155.9 16,115 (12.6%) 156 766 82.1%
2014 125,752 155.7 17,106 (13.6%) 128 690 82.4%
2015 127.395 157.0 18,079 (14.2%) 120 642 82.3%
2016 140.033 170.4 20,290 (14.5%) 145 805 82.6%
2017 137.058 166.1 20,550 (15.0%) 147 700 82.8%
2018 136,727 165.1 20,315 (14.9%) 139 638 82.5%
2019 133.084 160.3 19,233 (14.5%) 189 626 82.9%

literature

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b c d e PKS 2019 - time series overview of case tables. Federal Criminal Police Office, accessed on March 30, 2020 .
  2. ↑ a b c Michael Tonry: Why Crime Rates Are Falling Throughout the Western World, 43 Crime & Just. 1 (2014). P. 5.6 , accessed on June 6, 2019 .
  3. ↑ Gereon Wolters: The new version of the offenses against bodily harm . In: Juristische Schulung 1998, p. 582.
  4. ↑ Wolfgang Joecks: Before § 223 , Rn. 1. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  5. ↑ a b c d Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen, Martin Böse: § 224 , Rn. 1. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  6. ^ Reichsgesetzblatt 1876, No. 6, p. 37 ( online ).
  7. ^ Reichsgesetzblatt 1912, No. 1, p. 396 ( online ).
  8. ↑ Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen, Martin Böse: § 224 , Rn. 1. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  9. ↑ BT-Drs. 5/4095 , pp. 46, 49.
  10. ↑ Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen, Martin Böse: § 224 , Rn. 1, 38. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  11. ↑ BT-Drs. 13/8587 , p. 60.
  12. ↑ BT-Drs. 13/9064 , p. 15.
  13. ↑ Bernhard Hardtung: § 224 , Rn. 1. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  14. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 224, Rn. 15th
  15. ↑ Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen, Martin Böse: § 224 , Rn. 43. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  16. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 224, Rn. 2.
  17. ↑ Bernhard Hardtung: § 224 , Rn. 3. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  18. ↑ Bernhard Hardtung: § 224 , Rn. 4. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  19. ↑ a b Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part I: Offenses against personal rights, the state and society . 6th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2014, ISBN 978-3-8487-0290-9 , § 9, marginal no. 3.
  20. ↑ Bernhard Hardtung: § 224 , Rn. 7. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  21. ↑ a b BGH, judgment of March 16, 2006, 4 StR 536/05 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2006, p. 1823.
  22. ^ A b Thomas Fischer: Criminal Code with subsidiary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 224, Rn. 3a.
  23. ↑ BGHSt 51, 18 .
  24. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part I: Offenses against personal rights, the state and society . 6th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2014, ISBN 978-3-8487-0290-9 , § 9, marginal no. 4th
  25. ↑ Matthias Jahn: Comment on LG Würzburg, judgment of January 17, 2007, 1 Ks 901 Js 9131/2005 , Juristische Schulung 2007, p. 772.
  26. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 224, Rn. 4th
  27. ↑ Bernhard Hardtung: § 224 , Rn. 9. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  28. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 224, Rn. 5.
  29. ↑ Kristian Kühl: § 224 , Rn. 1a. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  30. ^ Walter Stree: § 224 , Rn. 2d. In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  31. ↑ Johannes Wessels, Michael Hettinger: Criminal Law Special Part 1: Offenses against personal and community values . 36th edition. CF Müller, Heidelberg 2012, ISBN 978-3-8114-9857-0 , Rn. 267.
  32. ^ BGH, judgment of June 29, 2009, 2 Ss 288/09 = Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, Jurisdiction Report 2009, p. 337.
  33. ↑ BGHSt 32, 130 (133).
  34. ^ BGH, judgment of June 30, 1976, 3 StR 469/75 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1976, p. 1851.
  35. ^ A b Thomas Fischer: Criminal Code with subsidiary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 224, Rn. 6th
  36. ↑ a b Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen, Martin Böse: § 224 , Rn. 10. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  37. ↑ Hans Lilie: § 224 , Rn. 15. In: Heinrich Wilhelm Laufhütte, Ruth Rissing-van Saan, Klaus Tiedemann (ed.): Criminal Code. Leipzig commentary . Big comment. Volume 7/1: §§ 211 to 231. 12th edition. De Gruyter, Berlin, Boston 2019, ISBN 978-3-89949-788-5 .
  38. ↑ Bernhard Hardtung: § 224 , Rn. 10. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  39. ^ BGH, judgment of October 21, 1983, 2 StR 289/83 = Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 1984, p. 165 (166).
  40. ↑ BGHSt 4, 125 (127).
  41. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part I: Offenses against personal rights, the state and society . 6th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2014, ISBN 978-3-8487-0290-9 , § 9, marginal no. 9.
  42. ↑ Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen, Martin Böse: § 224 , Rn. 13. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  43. ↑ Kristian Kühl: § 224 , Rn. 2. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  44. ↑ a b BGH, judgment of January 16, 2007, 4 StR 524/06 = New Journal for Criminal Law 2007, p. 405.
  45. ^ BGH, judgment of September 4, 2001, 1 StR 232/01 = New Journal for Criminal Law 2002, p. 30.
  46. ↑ BGH, judgment of April 2, 2008, 2 StR 529/07 = criminal defense lawyer 2008, p. 345.
  47. ↑ Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen, Martin Böse: § 224 , Rn. 14a. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  48. ↑ Walter Stree, Detlev Sternberg-Lieben: § 224 , Rn. 4. In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  49. ↑ BGHSt 14, 152 (154).
  50. ^ KG, judgment of January 28, 2005, 1 Ss 333/04 = Verkehrsrechts-Sammlung, p. 113.
  51. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part I: Offenses against personal rights, the state and society . 6th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2014, ISBN 978-3-8487-0290-9 , § 9, marginal no. 14th
  52. ↑ BGHSt 22, 235 .
  53. ↑ Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen, Martin Böse: § 224 , Rn. 14. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  54. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 224, Rn. 8a.
  55. ↑ Kristian Kühl: § 224 , Rn. 3. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  56. ↑ Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen, Martin Böse: § 224 , Rn. 12. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  57. ^ A b Thomas Fischer: Criminal Code with subsidiary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 224, Rn. 10.
  58. ↑ Klaus Ellbogen: The practical case - criminal law: gambling debts . In: Juristische Schulung 2002, p. 151.
  59. ↑ a b BGH, judgment of July 15, 2003, 1 StR 249/03 = New Journal for Criminal Law 2004, p. 93.
  60. ↑ Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen, Martin Böse: § 224 , Rn. 22. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  61. ^ BGH, judgment of September 15, 2010, 2 StR 395/10 = New Journal for Criminal Law - Case Law Report 2011, p. 337.
  62. ^ BGH, judgment of May 8, 2007, 4 StR 173/07 = New Journal for Criminal Law 2007, p. 702.
  63. ↑ Kristian Kühl: § 224 , Rn. 6. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  64. ↑ Dieter Dölling: § 224, Rn. 4 . In: Dieter Dölling, Kai Ambos, Gunnar Duttge, Dieter Rössner (eds.): Entire criminal law: StGB - StPO - ancillary laws . 3. Edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-7129-8 .
  65. ↑ Bernhard Hardtung: § 224 , Rn. 29. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  66. ↑ BGH, judgment of September 3, 2002, 5 StR 210/02 = Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2003, pp. 86–87.
  67. ↑ Wilfried Küper: Convergence. In: Goltdammer's Archive for Criminal Law 1997, p. 303.
  68. ↑ Bernhard Hardtung: § 224 , Rn. 32. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  69. ↑ Wilfried Küper: The "common" aspect of collective bodily harm. In: Goltdammer's Archive for Criminal Law 2003, p. 368.
  70. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part I: Offenses against personal rights, the state and society . 6th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2014, ISBN 978-3-8487-0290-9 , § 9, marginal no. 18th
  71. ↑ Bernhard Hardtung: § 224 , Rn. 33. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  72. ^ BGH, judgment of October 14, 1999, 4 StR 312/99 = New Journal for Criminal Law 2000, p. 195.
  73. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 .
  74. ↑ Bernhard Hardtung: § 224 , Rn. 31. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  75. ^ Manfred Heinrich, Uwe Hellmann, Volker Krey: Criminal law special part: Volume 1: special part without property offenses . 16th edition. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2015, ISBN 978-3-17-029884-2 , Rn. 267-268.
  76. ↑ Kristian Kühl: § 224 , Rn. 7. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  77. ↑ BGHSt 47, 383 .
  78. ↑ BGH, judgment of October 14, 1999, 3 StR 158/12 = New Journal for Criminal Law - Case Law Report 2012, p. 341.
  79. ↑ Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen, Martin Böse: § 224 , Rn. 24. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  80. ↑ a b BGH, judgment of December 22, 2005, 4 StR 347/05 = New Journal for Criminal Law 2006, p. 573.
  81. ↑ Bernhard Hardtung: § 224 , Rn. 33. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  82. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 224, Rn. 11a.
  83. ↑ BGHSt 2, 160 (163).
  84. ↑ a b Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen, Martin Böse: § 224 , Rn. 27. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  85. ↑ Wilfried Küper: Life-threatening treatment , p. 600. In: Thomas Weigend, Georg Küpper (Hrsg.): Festschrift for Hans Joachim Hirsch on his 70th birthday on April 11, 1999 . De Gruyter, Berlin 1999, ISBN 3-11-015586-9 .
  86. ↑ Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen, Martin Böse: § 224 , Rn. 28. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  87. ↑ Walter Stree: Dangerous bodily harm . In: Jura 1980, p. 291.
  88. ^ BGH, judgment of 16 January 2013, 2 StR 520/12 = Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2013, p. 344 (345).
  89. ↑ a b BGH, judgment of February 25, 2010, 4 StR 575/09 = New Journal for Criminal Law Jurisprudence Report 2010, p. 177.
  90. ↑ Hans Lilie: § 224 , Rn. 36. In: Heinrich Wilhelm Laufhütte, Ruth Rissing-van Saan, Klaus Tiedemann (eds.): Criminal Code. Leipzig commentary . Big comment. Volume 7/1: §§ 211 to 231. 12th edition. De Gruyter, Berlin, Boston 2019, ISBN 978-3-89949-788-5 .
  91. ↑ Jörg Eisele: Criminal Law 1: Special section criminal offenses against the person and the general public . 2nd Edition. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2012, ISBN 978-3-17-022087-4 , Rn. 341.
  92. ↑ Ralf Eschelbach: § 224, Rn. 41 . In: Bernd von Heintschel-Heinegg (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 2nd Edition. CH Beck, Munich 2015, ISBN 978-3-406-66118-1 .
  93. ↑ Wolfgang Frisch: Risky sexual intercourse of an HIV-infected person as a criminal offense ? In: Juristische Schulung 1990, p. 365.
  94. ^ Wolfgang Joecks, Christian Jäger: Criminal Code: Study Commentary . 12th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-67338-2 , § 224, Rn. 49.
  95. ^ LG Saarbrücken, judgment of March 2, 1983, 5 II 55/82 = New Journal for Criminal Law 1982, p. 414.
  96. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 224, Rn. 12b.
  97. ↑ OLG Cologne, judgment of December 15, 1982, 3 Ss 823/82 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1983, p. 2274.
  98. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 224, Rn. 12c.
  99. ↑ BGH, judgment of March 8, 2001, 4 StR 477/00 = criminal defense lawyer 2001, p. 572.
  100. ^ BGH, judgment of June 22, 2007, 2 StR 203/07 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2007, p. 2565.
  101. ↑ Kristian Kühl: Criminal Law General Part . 7th edition. Vahlen, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-8006-4494-0 , § 5, Rn. 43.
  102. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 224, Rn. 13.
  103. ↑ BGHSt 2, 160 (163).
  104. ↑ BGHSt 19, 352 .
  105. ↑ Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen, Martin Böse: § 224 , Rn. 35. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  106. ↑ Kristian Kühl: § 224 , Rn. 9. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  107. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 224, Rn. 17th
  108. ↑ Karsten Altenhain: The realization of several alternative offenses: individual crime or ideal competition . In: Journal for the entire criminal law science Volume 107, p. 393.
  109. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part I: Offenses against personal rights, the state and society . 6th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2014, ISBN 978-3-8487-0290-9 , § 9, marginal no. 25th
  110. ↑ Ralf Eschelbach: § 224, Rn. 54 . In: Bernd von Heintschel-Heinegg (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 2nd Edition. CH Beck, Munich 2015, ISBN 978-3-406-66118-1 .
  111. ^ A b Thomas Fischer: Criminal Code with subsidiary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 224, Rn. 16.
  112. ↑ Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen, Martin Böse: § 224 , Rn. 42. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  113. ↑ Michael Hanslmaier, Stefanie Kemme, Katharina Stoll, Dirk Baier: Crime in 2020: Explanation and prognosis of registered crime in times of demographic change . Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-03640-9 , pp. 26 .
  114. ↑ Police crime statistics 2016. (PDF) Federal Ministry of the Interior, pp. 32–34 , accessed on April 30, 2018 .
  115. ↑ Police crime statistics 2016. (PDF) Federal Ministry of the Interior, p. 43 , accessed on September 8, 2018 .
  116. ↑ Michael Hanslmaier, Stefanie Kemme, Katharina Stoll, Dirk Baier: Crime in 2020: Explanation and prognosis of registered crime in times of demographic change . Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-03640-9 , pp. 34 .
  117. ↑ Federal Criminal Police Office: PKS 2019 - IMK report. P. 9 , accessed March 24, 2020 .
  118. ↑ Michael Tonry: Why Crime Rates Are Falling Throughout the Western World, 43 Crime & Just. 1 (2014). P. 8 , accessed on June 6, 2019 (English).
This version was added to the list of articles worth reading on June 3, 2016 .