What is 74 out of 91
Hooligans as a criminal organization
In the beginning, based on the case law of the Reichsgericht (see RG, judgment of February 23, 1940 - 1 D 39/40, RGSt 74, 91, 93 f.), "Above all the motives play an important role" (BGH, judgment of January 29, 1953 - 5 StR 408/52, BGHSt 4, 24, 31).
On the criminalization of sadomasochistic practices with a fatal outcome
According to a case law going back to the Reichsgericht and according to some of the literature, the purpose as well as the goals and motives underlying the act are to be significantly included in the assessment, also or especially if it is "unfair", ie moral-moral acts reprehensible purposes (BGHSt 4, 24, 31; RGSt 74, 91.94; see also OLG Düsseldorf NStZ-RR 1997, 325, 327; LG Mönchengladbach NStZ-RR 1997, 169, 170, BayObLG NJW 1999, 372, 373 and BayObLGSt 1977, 105, 106 f.; ... Stree in Schönke / Schröder loc. Cit. § 228 marginal note 8; ... Lackner / Kühl, StGB 24th ed . § 228 marginal note 10; ... Berz GA 1969, 145).
Punch against the temple - § 226a (§ 228 StGB new version), §§ 222, 226 StGB old version (§ 227 ...
The decisive factor here is not whether the D.'s consent violated morality, but rather whether the defendant's act was shown to be immoral for a healthy sense of justice (RGSt 74, 91.95; RG DR 1943, S 579, No. 12).
Surgibone - § 16 StGB analogously in case of an error regarding the permit status (here: error about ...
The patient's consent is required to justify them (RGSt 25, 375, 378; 74, 91, 93; BGHSt 11, 111, 112; 16, 309 ff. [BGH 02/01/1961 - 2 StR 457/60]; 35, 246 ff.).
Bodily harm: Exclusion of justification through consent on the basis of ...
The earlier interpretation of the concept of "good morals", which was based on subjective moral values and took into account considerations of purposes and, in particular, "unfair purposes" (RGSt 74, 91, 94; ... Fischer op. Cit. § 228 marginal note 9) has therefore not been carried out by the Federal Court of Justice for a long time (... see Fischer op. Cit. § 228 marginal no. 9a ff.).
The appellate court rightly also referred to the decision of the Reichsgericht (DR 1940, 1288), in which it is stated that, in principle, the individual must retain the right to dispose of his or her body in relation to the doctor (RGZ 151, 349).
In the case of damage to health caused by the prescription of narcotics, this applies in any case if the use of the narcotics is not justified according to the recognized rules of medical science and the prescribing doctor himself does not consider it necessary for medical reasons (cf. RGSt 74, 91, 94,95 ).
- What is the purpose of licensing
- What are 10 must read books 1
- What makes the IDF so strong
- Are Croatians Slavs
- Is there permafrost in the United States
- Brush your teeth every day
- What is a distortion
- How do you play Keharwa Taal
- Does climate change have a timescale
- How is industrialization related to agriculture?
- Superpowers and supermen are possible
- What is the customization website
- What are the fees at Yale University
- What is capital
- How does gravity move the earth
- What role does the galaxy play
- Why is there philosophy and anthropology
- Helps a dedicated IP for SEO
- How should I start doing a project
- What flavors make your mouth water together
- Does my bad handwriting affect my grades?
- How can the internet change the automotive industry
- Why is Guyana called a cooperative republic
- What are the Symptoms of Nerve Cancer