Povzetek: V Kazenskem zakoniku (KZ-1) so (neredke) inkriminacije opisane tako, da niti v kazenskopravni doktrini niti v sodni praksi ni enotnih stališč o prav(n)i naravi posameznih delov opisa kaznivega dejanja, ali je torej določen zakonski znak razumeti kot prepovedano posledico kaznivega dejanja ali (povečini) nepravi objektivni pogoj kaznivosti. Če je na primer pri kaznivem dejanju uboja (115. člen KZ-1) povsem nedvoumno, da je prepovedana posledica izvršitvenega ravnanja odvzeto življenje (smrt ubitega), in je na drugi strani arhetipski primer (tudi v primerljivih kazenskih zakonikih sosednjih kazenskopravnih sistemov) kaznivega dejanja z vsebujočim objektivnim pogojem kaznivosti kaznivo dejanje sodelovanja pri pretepu (126. člen KZ-1), pa so prometna nesreča, v kateri nekdo dobi hudo telesno poškodbo (323. člen KZ-1), razširitev nalezljive bolezni (177. člen KZ-1) in občutno poslabšanje zdravja (179. člen KZ-1) opisi v inkriminacijskih normah, katerih prav(n)a narava spodbuja številne doktrinarne razprave. Namen prispevka je osvetliti nekatere težave, do katerih taka pravna nejasnost lahko privede, hkrati pa ponuditi rešitev, ki je povsem enostavna in primerjalnopravno že sprejeta - tj. nadomestiti objektivne pogoje kaznivosti s prepovedano posledico v obliki ogrozitve.
Ključne besede: prepovedana posledica, objektivni pogoj kaznivosti, abstraktna in konkretna ogrozitev, širjenje nalezljivih bolezni, prometna nesreča, občutno poslabšanje zdravja
Title: Prohibited Consequence or Objective Condition of Criminality in Selected Criminal Offences
Abstract: In the Slovenian Penal Code, KZ-1, some (not so rare) criminal offences are described in such a way that there are no uniform views on the exact nature of the individual parts of the description of the criminal offence, neither in the criminal law doctrine nor in case law. It is therefore stipulated that the legal description is to be regarded as prohibited consequence of the criminal offence or (mostly) the objective condition of criminality. For example, while in the case of a criminal offence of killing (Article 115 KZ-1), it is quite unambiguous that the consequence of such action is the death of someone, a criminal offence of participation in a fight (Article 126 of the KZ-1), on the other hand, is an archetypal case (also in comparable criminal codes of neighbouring criminal law systems) of a criminal offence with an objective condition of criminality, a traffic accident in which someone receives a serious bodily injury (Article 323 KZ-1), the spread of infectious diseases (Article 177 KZ-1), and significant deterioration of health (Article 179 KZ-1) are described in criminal norms whose (legal) nature is prompts numerous doctrinal discussions. The purpose of this paper is to highlight certain problems that such a legal ambiguity can bring, while offering a solution that is quite simple and comparatively legally accepted - i.e. to replace objective conditions of criminality with prohibited consequences in the form of a description that legal goods are endangered.
Keywords: prohibited consequence, objective condition of criminality, abstract and concrete threat, spread of infectious diseases, traffic accidents, significant deterioration of health
