چکیده:
The method of determining punishment for perpetrator of various crimes has always been the subject of theoretical discussions and legislative developments. In the latest developments resulting from The Law on Reducing the Imprisonment, passed on May 12, 2020, the Iranian legislatore has issued different rules on distinguishing between "different" crimes and non-different crimes in the case of material multiplicity of crimes, but refuses to set criteria for separating these two categories of crimes. This has led to a divergence of views and procedures in this regard. In this article, four criteria for identifying different crimes have been explained and criticized by descriptive-analytical method. Unification of criminal title, unification of legal element, unification of constituent elements of crime, unification of constituent elements and punishment. Finally, according to the advantages and disadvantages of each of these interpretations, the criterion of unification of the constituent elements and punishment in order to comply with the principles of criminal law and narrow interpretation of criminal texts, more than other interpretations, is considered a legislator and as an autonomous view, has been introduced.
خلاصه ماشینی:
In distinguishing real multiplicity from constructive multiplicity, the commission of more than one material criminal act, each of which independently contains the elements of a crime (Noorbaha, 2003: 453), and in some opinions, multiplicity of result (Taherinasab, 2002: 141-142; Foroughi and Joudaki, 2015: 104), and in distinguishing multiplicity from recidivism, the existence or absence of a final conviction or the execution of punishment for multiple crimes committed by one person (Peimani, 1995: 495) have been accepted as diagnostic criteria; however, finding a rule for the method of determining punishment for multiple crimes committed by a single perpetrator has always been a subject of legal reflections and legislative developments, both theoretically and practically.
The validity of this provision did not last long, and on 1932/10/04, with the approval of "The Supplementary Law to Amend the Principles of Criminal Procedure" and the explicit repeal of the aforementioned Article 33, the similarity or difference of the committed crimes lost its effect, and it was stipulated that in the material concurrence of crimes, regardless of whether the crimes are identical or not, the perpetrator must be sentenced for each crime to the maximum punishment of that crime be sentenced, but in the execution stage, only the most severe punishment shall be carried out.
On this basis, if, for example, a person commits forgery in an ordinary sales contract, forgery of banknotes, forgery in an official document, and also forgery of an educational certificate, all these four charges are considered instances of committing identical crimes, and according to the amended Article 134 of the Islamic Penal Code, only one punishment will be determined for the perpetrator, and in this case, the court may, at its discretion, apply punishment aggravation to this single punishment.
(
, 
, 
)
