Predatory attack on motorists

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The predatory attack on motorists is an offense under German criminal law . It is one of the publicly dangerous offenses and is standardized in Section 316a in Section 28 of the Special Part of the Criminal Code . The offense includes acts of aggression directed against vehicle occupants and used to commit robbery ( Section 249 StGB), predatory extortion ( Section 255 StGB) or predatory theft ( Section 252 StGB).

The penal norm is based on the law against street robbery by means of car traps of 1938. The reason for punishment under Section 316a of the Criminal Code is essentially the charge that the perpetrator exploits the fact that the victim's attention is drawn through traffic processes, which is why it is less ready to defend against the attack by the perpetrator.

The offense of § 316a StGB is viewed extremely critically in jurisprudence for several reasons: The threat of punishment, which is at a particularly high level with a minimum of five years imprisonment , which only a few offenses have , is often criticized . Furthermore, some lawyers criticize the structure and the elements of the standard, which make it difficult to use. In addition, this is sometimes considered to be dispensable, since the injustice perpetrated by the perpetrator is already sufficiently covered by the robbery offenses. This is also shown by the fact that other legal systems do not contain a regulation comparable to Section 316a StGB.

According to police crime statistics , 212 cases of Section 316a StGB were reported in Germany in 2017 . In terms of numbers, the process is therefore very rarely reported in comparison with other facts.

Normalization

Since it was last changed on April 1, 1998, the offense of a predatory attack on motorists has been as follows:

(1) Anyone who, in order to commit a robbery (Sections 249 or 250), a predatory theft (Section 252) or a predatory extortion (Section 255), assaults the life or the decision of the driver of a motor vehicle or a passenger, and thereby exploiting the special conditions of road traffic will be punished with imprisonment for not less than five years.

(2) In less serious cases, the penalty is imprisonment from one year to ten years.

(3) If the offender causes the death of another person, at least recklessly, the penalty is life imprisonment or imprisonment for no less than ten years.

Due to the minimum penalty of five years imprisonment is the offense according to § 12 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code, a crime . Therefore, according to § 23 1 of the Criminal Code of paragraph trial and to § 30 paragraph 1 and 2 of the Criminal Code certain preparatory acts punishable. According to § 138 Paragraph 1 Number 8 StGB, § 316a StGB is also an offense, the failure to report can be punishable if the offense can still be averted by reporting it.

With the offense of a predatory attack on motorists, the legislature intended to protect several legal interests : On the one hand, the standard protects the integrity of the victim of the attack, who can only defend himself to a limited extent due to the stress of traffic processes. On the other hand, the standard aims to protect the safety of road traffic, as corresponding acts of attack can pose a considerable risk of accidents.

History of origin

Law against street robbery using car traps

The criminal provision of § 316a StGB was preceded by the law against street robbery by means of car traps of June 22, 1938, which was directly motivated by the robberies of the brothers Max and Walter Götze . They carried out several attacks on car drivers. To do this, they had set up obstacles on the streets to force the drivers to stop. After the brothers were arrested, the Nazi regime intended to sentence both of them to death. While this was already likely with Walter Götze because of several other crimes according to the current legal situation, State Secretary Roland Freisler had doubts whether Max Götze could also be executed. Therefore, he had a new criminal law draft drawn up that threatened the attacks that Max Götze had helped commit with the death penalty . According to this norm, anyone who “ set a car trap with robbery intent ” was sentenced . So that the law could be applied to the Götze case, like many other Nazi criminal laws , it came into force retrospectively on January 1, 1936.

New version of the standard

On June 20, 1947, the penal norm was repealed by the Control Council Act No. 55 , as, among other things, the offense was viewed as too vague to meet the rule of law. However, since the German legislature feared, in view of some robberies on traffic routes, that attacks on motorists could not be adequately sanctioned without the standard, it revised the earlier facts in order to adapt them to the requirements of the Basic Law. The newly drafted standard punished the undertaking of an attack on life, limb or freedom of decision of a motor vehicle driver or a passenger while exploiting the special conditions of road traffic for the purpose of robbery or extortion by predatory acts. Furthermore, the legislature replaced the death penalty, which had been abolished in accordance with Article 102 of the Basic Law , with a minimum sentence of five years in prison and added a possibility of reducing the sentence if the offender gave up his act . The revised penal norm came into force on January 23, 1953 as Section 316a of the Criminal Code.

With the penal reform law of June 25, 1969, in the course of the abolition of the penitentiary, penitentiary sentences were replaced by the threat of imprisonment. With effect from December 19, 1971, the legislature expanded the standard to include an unnamed, less serious case, which threatened a minimum sentence of one year. With this change, the legislature reacted to criticism of the jurisprudence of the high minimum penalty of § 316a StGB.

With effect from January 1, 1975, the legislature expanded the range of offenses to be committed by the attack to include robbery.

The last significant change to § 316a StGB so far was made by the sixth Criminal Law Reform Act of 1998. The legislature replaced the concept of the company with the act of offense. In this way, he created space for an attempt to commit the offense, from which the perpetrator can withdraw with the effect of discharging the penalty in accordance with Section 24 of the Criminal Code . Furthermore, he replaced the provision for mitigating punishment for active repentance with a punishing qualification for success : killing another person.

Current criticism of the penal norm, which is unique from a comparative legal perspective, is particularly linked to the high minimum threat of punishment, which is five times greater than that of robbery and extortion. This is why Section 316a StGB is in tension with the prohibition of excess , according to which the injustice committed and the threatened punishment must be in an appropriate relationship to one another. Therefore, some legal scholars are calling for a reduction in the range of penalties, while others are calling for the standard to be deleted or revised. Since the legislature has not yet decided to lower the minimum threat of punishment, the case law tries to restrict the handling of the norm by interpreting the respective constituent elements narrowly.

Objective fact

Offense

A criminal liability according to § 316a StGB presupposes that the perpetrator attacks the driver or passenger of a motor vehicle. An attack is understood to be an act that is directly aimed at impairing life, limb or freedom of decision. Physical injuries and coercion , for example, come into consideration as acts of attack . Examples include threatening with a weapon or preparing obstacles in order to force the driver to evade.

It is controversial whether cunning is a suitable means of attack. A cunning attack occurs, for example, when the perpetrator induces the driver to drive to a remote location so that he can rob him there. For a long time, the case law affirmed the existence of a factual attack in such cases, since such a constellation represents a typical form of attack on motorists. Against the application of Section 316a of the Criminal Code in such a case, legal scholars argued that cunning does not, as a rule, lead to an effect on the victim whose severity is comparable to the other means of crime. The Federal Court of Justice joined the critical voices with its judgment of November 20, 2003 and abandoned its earlier case law. Since then he has only viewed cunning as a suitable means of crime if the attack is sufficiently serious, for example because it has a necessary effect on the victim. This is the case, for example, when the perpetrator fakes a police check in order to move a vehicle to stop for the purpose of a robbery.

Crime victim

The standard initially names motor vehicle drivers as possible victims . This defines the jurisprudence as persons who set a vehicle in motion, keep it in motion or are generally involved in the operation of the vehicle or in dealing with traffic processes. For a long time it was controversial in jurisprudence under which circumstances a driver was still considered a motor vehicle driver who had stopped his vehicle. There is now widespread agreement that it does not affect the status of a vehicle driver if you stop for traffic-related reasons. This applies, for example, to stopping at traffic lights or at a construction site. Because with such stops, the driver has to concentrate on what is happening on the road so that he is less able to defend himself against attacks.

If the driver stops for reasons other than traffic-related reasons, he can still be regarded as the driver of the vehicle, provided he is busy operating his vehicle. This applies, for example, when the driver stops to investigate a driving noise or to let a passenger get out. Running the engine is an important indicator of the continued status of traffic management. The victim is no longer considered the driver of the vehicle once the vehicle has been parked. Because after this it is no longer restricted in its defense capability due to the specific requirements of flowing traffic. Furthermore, whoever is outside the vehicle is not considered a vehicle driver.

Section 316a of the Criminal Code mentions passengers as further possible victims .

Factual situation

After all, the perpetrator has to take advantage of the special conditions of road traffic in his attack . These are circumstances that typically result from participation in public transport and mean that the victim can only defend himself against the attack to a limited extent. This applies to situations in which the victim of the attack is focused on road traffic, for example because the vehicle is driving or because the vehicle is stopped for traffic-related reasons.

On the other hand, there is no exploitation of a road traffic situation if the victim is busy with processes that are not related to the processes of road traffic. This applies, for example, to a taxi driver who collects money from his customer. The isolation of the victim by being moved to a lonely place does not represent a specific danger either. Although the case law previously assessed this as a factual element, it has since withdrawn from it, since being moved to another place is not a risk that is typical in connection with the Road traffic.

Subjective fact

A criminal liability according to § 316a StGB requires at least conditional intent according to § 315 StGB with regard to the objective facts. The perpetrator must therefore at least recognize that he is making use of the special circumstances of road traffic in carrying out his attack and approvingly accept that the victim's ability to defend himself is weakened as a result. This is lacking, for example, when the perpetrator wants to overwhelm the victim simply by being superior in numbers.

In addition, the perpetrator must act with the intention of using his attack for a robbery, a predatory theft or a predatory extortion: The perpetrator's commission of such an act must be precisely the target of the perpetrator. This intention must exist when the attack is committed. Therefore, the offense of § 316a StGB is not fulfilled if the perpetrator does not intend to commit the robbery until after the attack. Participants in the attack, i.e. instigators and assistants , do not have to act with this intention themselves. However, they need to know the perpetrator's intent.

attempt

An attempt exists if the perpetrator intentionally and with the intention of committing a robbery, immediately starts an attack, for example by drawing an assault weapon. The perpetrator can withdraw from an attempt with the effect of discharging the penalty . This can be considered as long as the attempt has not failed or the offense has already been completed . Since the offense is already completed by the attack, the trial stage and thus the period of time for a resignation is usually tight. It is possible to withdraw from the attempt if the perpetrator puts his drawn weapon back in his pocket before he has used it to threaten the victim.

qualification

Section 316a (3) of the Criminal Code contains a punitive qualification for success that increases the minimum penalty to ten years imprisonment andallows for life imprisonment to be ordered. The qualification for success presupposes that the offender causes the death of another person through the act, not necessarily that of the attacked person. The occurrence of death must be a direct consequence of the danger posed by the attack. This applies if it is directly related to the exploitation of the road traffic situation. This is lacking, for example, when death is the sole consequence of the later robbery. A sufficient connection exists, however, if the attacked vehicle driver commits a driving error as a result of the attack and has a fatal accident with the car. After all, the perpetrator must at least be accused of carelessnesswith regard to the killing, i.e. particularly serious negligence. This is the case if he disregards the imposing possibility of a fatal course of the act out of particular recklessness or out of particular indifference.

Litigation and sentencing

The act is prosecuted ex officio as an official offense, so that a criminal complaint is not required. The threat of punishment is generally between five and fifteen years imprisonment. Furthermore, according to Section 69 of the Criminal Code, the perpetrator's driving license can be withdrawn and, according to Section 74 of the Criminal Code, the crime vehicle can be confiscated.

According to Section 316a (2) StGB, the threat of imprisonment is reduced to a range of one to ten years if the case is less serious . This comes into consideration, for example, if the attack is only associated with minor dangers for the victim, the decision to act is taken spontaneously and under the influence of alcohol, or the prey obtained through the robbery is only of low value.

The predatory attack is deemed to have ended when the perpetrator has completed the attack. From this point begins according § 78a of the Criminal Code, the limitation period . The statute of limitations for the basic offense is twenty years due to its scope of punishment under Section 78 (3) number 2 of the Criminal Code. Qualification for success expires after thirty years due to the higher threat of punishment in accordance with Section 78 (3) number 1 of the Criminal Code.

Law competitions

An act according to § 316a StGB can be in legal competition with facts that are realized by the intended robbery, in particular robbery, robbery and blackmail. Because of the typically close temporal and spatial relationship between the attack and the predatory Raubtat both Tatbegehungen are usually each other according to § 52 paragraph 1 SCC in coincidence . The implementation of Section 316a of the Criminal Code can also be linked to the implementation of a dangerous intrusion into road traffic , for example if the perpetrator erects an obstacle in road traffic to carry out the predatory attack.

criminology

Recorded cases of predatory attack on drivers from 1987-2017.

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.

Acts according to § 316a StGB are reported comparatively rarely. In 2017 there were a total of 212 recorded predatory attacks on motorists. This means that the number of predatory attacks has fallen by 15 cases compared to the previous year. The clearance rate for 2017 was 54.7%. The number of offenses committed with firearms is falling. Predatory attacks are prevented by central locking in vehicles. The acts are often directed against taxi drivers.

The convict statistics for 2015 show 48 convictions according to § 316a StGB, which corresponds to a share of about 1% of all crimes in the area of ​​robbery and extortion offenses. Most of the crimes were committed by male perpetrators. Almost 20% of those convicted were foreigners. 29 convictions were made under youth criminal law . When it comes to sentencing, the case law rarely goes beyond the minimum penalty of five years.

Due to the wording of § 316a StGB as a corporate offense, which was valid until 1998 , an attempt was not possible until the offense was reformed, since the immediate start of the offense, the undertaking of the attack, already led to the completion of the offense.

Police crime statistics for the robbery attack on drivers in the Federal Republic of Germany
Cases recorded With a gun
year All in all Per 100,000 inhabitants Proportion of attempted acts

(absolute / relative)

Shot Threatened Clearance rate
1987 558 0.9 0 (0.0%) 15th 140 61.6%
1988 476 0.8 0 (0.0%) 4th 90 54.0%
1989 475 0.8 0 (0.0%) 6th 88 51.4%
1990 510 0.8 0 (0.0%) 6th 111 57.5%
1991 690 1.1 0 (0.0%) 14th 143 55.7%
1992 751 1.1 0 (0.0%) 13 177 50.1%
1993 803 1.0 0 (0.0%) 10 196 49.4%
1994 760 0.9 0 (0.0%) 12 168 49.6%
1995 734 0.9 0 (0.0%) 14th 168 51.0%
1996 725 0.9 0 (0.0%) 15th 149 48.0%
1997 744 0.9 0 (0.0%) 11 172 49.2%
1998 711 0.9 0 (0.0%) 16 188 48.9%
1999 589 0.7 26 (4.4%) 21st 123 49.7%
2000 506 0.6 39 (7.7%) 14th 103 53.4%
2001 538 0.7 38 (7.4%) 8th 124 50.9%
2002 562 0.7 64 (11.4%) 10 126 51.4%
2003 549 0.7 62 (11.3%) 12 143 53.2%
2004 581 0.7 126 (21.7%) 13 128 49.1%
2005 493 0.6 143 (29.0%) 7th 91 51.9%
2006 419 0.5 123 (29.4%) 4th 80 52.5%
2007 448 0.5 117 (26.1%) 11 88 49.1%
2008 393 0.5 117 (29.8%) 4th 67 55.5%
2009 417 0.5 135 (32.4%) 1 83 51.3%
2010 403 0.5 112 (27.8%) 2 75 49.9%
2011 335 0.4 91 (27.2%) 7th 57 50.4%
2012 354 0.4 107 (30.2%) 2 56 45.5%
2013 269 0.3 93 (34.6%) 0 34 57.6%
2014 247 0.3 84 (34.0%) 6th 31 53.8%
2015 263 0.3 95 (36.1%) 0 31 49.0%
2016 227 0.3 80 (35.2%) 1 22nd 61.7%
2017 212 0.3 77 (36.3%) 2 17th 54.7%

literature

  • Burkhard Feilcke: § 316a . In: Bernd von Heintschel-Heinegg (Hrsg.): Beckscher Online Comment StGB , 30th Edition 2016.
  • Gunnar Duttge: § 316a . 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 .
  • Thomas Fischer: Criminal Code with subsidiary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 316a .
  • Markus Hübsch: The concept of the attack in § 316a StGB: the predatory attack on drivers according to the 6th Criminal Law Reform Act . Peter Lang Publishing Group, 2007, ISBN 978-3-631-56039-6 .
  • Günter Sander: § 316a . In: Wolfgang Joecks, Klaus Miebach (Hrsg.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 5 : §§ 263–358 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  • Detlev Sternberg-Lieben, Bernd Hecker: § 316a . In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  • Frank Zieschang: § 316a . In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b c d Günter Sander: § 316a , Rn. 6. In: Wolfgang Joecks, Klaus Miebach (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 5 : §§ 263–358 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  2. ↑ BGHSt 49, 8 (11).
  3. ↑ Detlev Sternberg-Lieben, Bernd Hecker : § 316a , Rn. 1. In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 . Rudolf Rengier: Criminal Law Special Part I: Property Offenses . 18th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-68816-4 , § 12, Rn. 1.
  4. ↑ Matthias Niedzwicki: The law against street robbery by car traps and § 316a of the Criminal Code . In: Journal for Legal Studies 2008, p. 371 (371–372).
  5. ↑ Günter Sander: § 316a , Rn. 5. In: Wolfgang Joecks, Klaus Miebach (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 5 : §§ 263–358 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 . Matthias Niedzwicki: The law against street robbery using car traps and § 316a StGB . In: Journal for legal studies 2008, p. 371 (373). Christina Große: Influence of the National Socialist criminal legislation on today's StGB using the example of Section 316a StGB . In: New Journal for Criminal Law 1993, p. 525 (526).
  6. ↑ BT-Drs. 6/2721 , p. 2.
  7. ↑ Günter Sander: § 316a , Rn. 6. In: Wolfgang Joecks, Klaus Miebach (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 5 : §§ 263–358 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  8. ^ Frank Zieschang: § 316a , Rn. 8. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  9. ^ Gunnar Duttge, Waltraud Nolden: The interpretation of § 316a StGB based on legal interests . In: Juristische Schulung 2005, p. 193 (195).
  10. ↑ Matthias Jahn: Comment on BGH 2 StR 104/14 . In: Juristische Schulung 2014, p. 1135 (1137). Georg Freund: The draft of a 6th law to reform the criminal law . In: Journal for the entire criminal law science 1997, p. 455 (482). Thomas Fischer: Criminal Code with subsidiary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 316a, Rn. 2.
  11. ↑ Björn Jesse: § 316a StGB: disproportionate, superfluous - unconstitutional? Attempt on an unpopular fact and a proposal to change the StGB . In: JuristenZeitung 2008, p. 1083. Georg Steinberg: § 316a StGB - Perspectives of a welcome turnaround in the method of interpretation . In: New Journal for Traffic Law 2007, p. 545 (551).
  12. ↑ Sigmund Martin: Comment on BGH 4 StR 150/03 . In: Juristische Schulung 2004, p. 352. Gunnar Duttge, Waltraud Nolden: The interpretation of § 316a StGB based on legal interests . In: Juristische Schulung 2005, p. 193.
  13. ↑ Günter Sander: § 316a , Rn. 8. In: Wolfgang Joecks, Klaus Miebach (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 5 : §§ 263–358 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 . Christoph Sowada: § 316a , Rn. 9. In: Heinrich Wilhelm Laufhütte (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 8: §§ 306-323 . De Gruyter, Berlin 2008, ISBN 978-3-89949-564-5 .
  14. ↑ BGHSt 25, 224 (225).
  15. ↑ Günter Sander: § 316a , Rn. 10-11. In: Wolfgang Joecks, Klaus Miebach (Hrsg.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 5 : §§ 263–358 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  16. ↑ BGHSt 13, 27 (30).
  17. ↑ Felix Herzog: Comment on BGH 4 StR 150/03 . In: Juristische Rundschau 2004, p. 256 (258). Gunnar Duttge, Waltraud Nolden: The interpretation of § 316a StGB based on legal interests . In: Juristische Schulung 2005, p. 193 (198).
  18. ↑ a b BGHSt 49, 8 .
  19. ^ Matthias Krüger: "News" from the predatory attack on drivers! - Analysis of the more recent case law of the 4th BGH criminal senate . In: Neue Zeitschrift für Verkehrsrecht 2004, p. 161 (166).
  20. ↑ BGH, judgment of December 17, 2010, 4 StR 607/14 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2015, p. 2131.
  21. ↑ Burkhard Feilcke: § 316a , Rn. 15.2. In: Bernd von Heintschel-Heinegg (Hrsg.): Beckscher Online Comment StGB , 30th Edition 2016. Detlev Sternberg-Lieben, Bernd Hecker: § 316a , 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 .
  22. ↑ BGHSt 38, 196 .
  23. ↑ BGHSt 25, 315 (316). BGHSt 50, 169 (171).
  24. ^ BGH, judgment of December 11, 2003, 4 StR 427/03 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2004, p. 269.
  25. ↑ a b c BGHSt 50, 169 .
  26. ↑ Detlev Sternberg-Lieben, Bernd Hecker: § 316a , Rn. 8. In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  27. ↑ BGHSt 6, 82 (83).
  28. ↑ Christian Roßmüller, Guido Rohrer: The predatory attack on drivers - criticism of the BGH case law on the corporate offense of § 316a StGB . In: Neue Zeitschrift für Verkehrsrecht 1995, p. 253 (255).
  29. ↑ Detlev Sternberg-Lieben, Bernd Hecker: § 316a , Rn. 9. In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  30. ↑ Markus Hübsch: The concept of the attack in § 316a StGB: the predatory attack on drivers according to the 6th Criminal Law Reform Act . Peter-Lang-Verlagsgruppe, 2007, ISBN 978-3-631-56039-6 , p. 67 .
  31. ↑ BGHSt 5, 280 . BGHSt 33, 381 .
  32. ↑ Günter Sander: § 316a , Rn. 29. In: Wolfgang Joecks, Klaus Miebach (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 5 : §§ 263–358 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  33. ↑ Detlev Sternberg-Lieben, Bernd Hecker: § 316a , Rn. 13. In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  34. ↑ BGHSt 13, 27 (30).
  35. ↑ BGHSt 49, 8 (16).
  36. ↑ Kristian Kühl: Criminal Law General Part . 7th edition. Vahlen, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-8006-4494-0 , § 5, Rn. 43.
  37. ↑ BGHSt 49, 8 (16).
  38. ↑ BGHSt 24, 284
  39. ↑ BGH, decision of September 10, 1996, 4 StR 416/96 = Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 1997, p. 236 (237) (“targeted action”).
  40. ↑ Christoph Sowada: § 316a , Rn. 45 f. In: Heinrich Wilhelm Laufhütte (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 8: §§ 306-323 . De Gruyter, Berlin 2008, ISBN 978-3-89949-564-5 . .
  41. ^ Frank Zieschang: § 316a , Rn. 47. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  42. ↑ Günter Sander: § 316a , Rn. 51. In: Wolfgang Joecks, Klaus Miebach (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 5 : §§ 263–358 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  43. ↑ Frank Zieschang: § 316a , Rn 50. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 . Ralph Ingelfinger: On the actual scope of the new regulation of the robbery attack on motorists and the possibility of resignation exempting punishment . In: Juristische Rundschau 2000, p. 225.
  44. ↑ Detlev Sternberg-Lieben, Bernd Hecker: § 316a , Rn. 18. In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  45. ^ Frank Zieschang: § 316a , Rn. 53. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 . .
  46. ^ Gunnar Duttge: § 316a , Rn. 18. 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 . Thomas Fischer: Criminal Code with subsidiary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 316a, Rn. 19th
  47. ^ BGH, judgment of February 4, 2010, 4 StR 394/09 = New Journal for Criminal Law Jurisprudence Report 2010, p. 178.
  48. ^ Frank Zieschang: § 316a , Rn. 54. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  49. ↑ Joachim Renzikowski: § 316a , Rn. 28. In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 . Günter Sander: § 316a , Rn. 60. In: Wolfgang Joecks, Klaus Miebach (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 5 : §§ 263–358 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  50. ↑ BGH, judgment of November 9, 1995, 4 StR 507/95 = New Journal for Criminal Law Jurisprudence Report 1996, p. 133. BGH, judgment of June 29, 1994, 3 StR 181/94.
  51. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 316a, Rn. 15th
  52. ↑ Kristian Kühl: § 78a , Rn. 2. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  53. ^ Gunnar Duttge: § 316a , Rn. 22. 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 .
  54. ^ BGH, judgment of May 3, 1963, 4 StR 131/63 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1963, p. 1413 (1414). BGHSt 14, 386 (391).
  55. ↑ BGHSt 39, 249 .
  56. ↑ a b c PKS time series 1987 to 2017. (CSV) Federal Criminal Police Office, May 8, 2018, accessed on October 10, 2018 .
  57. ↑ Police crime statistics. Federal Criminal Police Office, accessed on May 2, 2018 .
  58. ^ Gunnar Duttge: § 316a , Rn. 1. 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 .
  59. ↑ a b Günter Sander: § 316a , Rn. 4. In: Wolfgang Joecks, Klaus Miebach (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 5 : §§ 263–358 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  60. ↑ Law enforcement specialist series 10 series 3 - 2015. (PDF) Destatis, 2015, pp. 36, 322, 492 , accessed on May 2, 2018 .
This version was added to the list of articles worth reading on June 24, 2017 .