Criminal Code on causing grievous bodily harm by negligence

Article 118 was included in the Criminal Code from the moment the law came into force.
This is due to the fact that unintentional offenses cannot be punished as severely as intentional ones. Unintentionally caused damage poses less danger to the public. It cannot be said that a person has embarked on a criminal path and has become dangerous to others, so imprisonment occurs in extreme cases. Multi-channel free hotline Legal advice on criminal law. Every day from 9.00 to 21.00

Moscow and region: +7 (495) 662-44-36

St. Petersburg: +7 (812) 449-43-40

Article 118 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

The law provides for punishment for causing serious harm to human health through negligence. Based on the circumstances of the case, a fine, compulsory labor, imprisonment or arrest are imposed.

Taking into account the factor of unintentionality of damage, the legislator established relatively mild preventive measures.

The degree of damage is determined on the basis of Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated August 17, 2007 No. 552.

Article 118 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation establishes sanctions if:

• the injury is life-threatening;
• there has been a loss of an entire body part or its function;
• miscarriage or fetal death has occurred;
• the person has become a drug addict or substance abuser;
• face disfigured;
• the disability is persistent and significant;
• the ability to perform a specific professional activity is completely lost.

Specific qualifying signs of severity are established by Order of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation dated April 24, 2008 No. 194n. Based on these criteria, a medical examination of the victim’s wounds and injuries is carried out.

The concept of “negligence” means that for an act to be considered criminal there must be no intent. The culprit, when performing some action, did not want another person to suffer.

There are 2 types of negligence that are criminally punishable:

1. Frivolity.
2. Negligence.

In the case of frivolity, the perpetrator knew that the action could lead to a negative result, but expected to avoid it thanks to his skills and abilities, the actions of other people, and external factors.

In the Komi Republic, a summer resident decided to burn last year’s dry grass on his plot. He knew that doing this close to people and houses was dangerous, but he hoped that in case of danger he would have time to put out the fire. A strong gust of wind threw some of the burning grass at a neighbor passing by. As a result, the man received numerous extensive burns.

In case of negligence, a person did not expect that negative consequences would occur as a result of his actions, but he was obliged to.

A group of workers pushed their colleague into the water as a joke. He couldn't swim and began to drown. Asphyxia resulted in irreversible brain damage. The jokers were convicted because they did not imagine that the victim might choke, but should have foreseen such consequences of their actions.

The aggravating circumstance indicated was the improper performance of professional duties.

In order for a person’s act to be classified as criminal, it is necessary to prove the obligatory nature of actions or inactions. For example, this is stated in the job description, safety regulations and other regulatory documents.

The electrician is responsible for ensuring that the electrical panel is locked. However, he forgot to lock the door. Another worker, out of curiosity, entered the room and received a strong electric shock. After a forensic medical examination, the injury was recognized as serious, and the electrician’s actions were qualified under Part 2.

Medical workers often fall under Part 2. The orderly incorrectly inserted a catheter into the child, as a result of which a blood clot broke off, leading to a heart attack. After suffering from an illness, the minor became disabled. The doctor was sentenced to imprisonment.

What does it mean to cause harm to a person through negligence?

This formulation implies the unintentionality of the act of the accused, which ultimately led to serious harm to the health of the victim . Also under consideration may be situations where the defendant was aware of his actions, but they objectively should not have led to such consequences.

Each case requires individual consideration; Much depends on the judge's decision. The main criterion for defining “negligence” and classifying a crime as falling under Article 118 is the lack of intent in the actions of the accused.

The wording still requires distinctions, which in Art. 118 is not observed. There is a difference between a complete lack of intent or its absence specifically in causing grievous bodily harm.

For example, a case at a construction site, when the defendant accidentally, but at the same time violating safety precautions, touched the victim, and he fell from a height, clearly fits under Art. 118. But another situation, where the accused proves that he hit a person without the intent to cause him serious harm, is controversial, because the blow itself was committed intentionally.

At present, it seems possible to distinguish between such cases only through different degrees of punishment or adding additional articles to the consideration of the case.

Based on the above, in general, such cases can be divided into two types:

1. when the accused did not plan to cause any harm to the victim at all . Although his actions themselves, theoretically, could be of a threatening nature - for example, speeding while driving. He didn’t see, didn’t notice, couldn’t foresee that a person would be nearby. The court usually considers such cases under Article 118, and the defendant has the opportunity to receive a relatively small punishment.
2. When the defendant nevertheless took, consciously and intentionally, certain actions that ultimately led to serious harm to the plaintiff’s health .
   In cases of fights that result in such consequences, people involved in such cases often insist that they did not mean to cause serious harm to the victim. Their chances are slim: judicial practice shows that when considering the situation under Art. 118 they are refused very often.

Cases in the style of “pushed - fell, hit his head, got injured” and the like remain questionable . The decision on them depends heavily on the testimony of witnesses.

Commentary to Art. 118 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

The direct object of the crime is human health.

The elements of the offense are material, since liability occurs after the fact of a negative consequence is established. There cannot be a formal violation related to preparation for the commission, since the law speaks of unintentionality.

To impose punishment, the offender must be sane. The age of prosecution is 14 years.

The objective side of a crime is characterized by a cause-and-effect relationship between a person’s act and the injury caused. A striking example of criminal inaction is a dog attacking a passerby when the owner did not give the necessary command or force the animal to retreat.

The main difference between causing grievous harm by negligence and the provisions of norm 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is the absence of direct intent. It is the subjective side that will be the most important sign of a violation committed.

The presence or absence of a plan depends on:

• the severity of the offense;
• amount of punishment.

During a quarrel, a citizen pushed his opponent, the victim could not stay on his feet, fell and hit his head on a large stone. If during the push the perpetrator shouted “Die!”, then the court recognizes that he caused the damage intentionally. This is what the investigation will be based on in the future. It is almost impossible to prove in court that there is no desire to harm.

Verdict under Article 118 Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

SENTENCE

IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Angarsk November 24, 2011

Angarsk City Court of the Irkutsk Region, chaired by Judge A.M. Lozovsky, with the participation of the state prosecutor, assistant prosecutor of the city of Angarsk V.A. Seredkina, defendant S.M. Shpilkov, defense lawyer I.P. Gerchikov, who presented certificate No. 00202 and order dated 10.10.2011, ... victim N.., legal representative of the victim Luzgina I.V., representative of the victim lawyer Semenova L.S., who presented certificate No. 00735 and warrant dated November 14, 2011, with secretary Leonova L.N. , having examined in open court the materials of the criminal case against

Shpilkova S.M.

, ** year of birth, native of ..., citizen of the Russian Federation, with secondary technical education, liable for military service, single, no children, living in ... working ...”, no criminal record,

who is under recognizance not to leave the place and of proper behavior, accused of committing a crime under Part 1 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,

INSTALLED:

Shpilkov S.M. caused serious harm to N.’s health through negligence under the following circumstances:

** at about 16 hours 30 minutes, the exact time has not been established, Shpilkov S.M., being near house No. located in block No. ..., saw a previously acquaintance N. coming towards him. At that moment Shpilkov S.M., being on at a distance of about 3 meters from N., from his jacket he took out a gas pistol “**” No. that belonged to him, the barrel of which was pointed towards N. in an outstretched hand, keeping his finger on the trigger. Shpilkov S.M., believing that the pistol is not loaded (there is no cartridge in the chamber) and his actions are of a comic nature, not foreseeing the possibility of socially dangerous consequences of his actions in the form of causing grievous harm to N.’s health, although with the necessary care and forethought he should was and could have foreseen them, pulled the trigger of the gas pistol “**” No., as a result of which he fired one shot with a cartridge with a rubber bullet into N.’s head, causing the latter bodily injuries in the form of a gunshot wound to the area of ​​the nose on the right, penetrating into the cavity nose with the formation and displacement of bone fragments into the nasal cavity and maxillary sinus, concussion, contusion of the right eye, causing slight harm to health due to the short-term health disorder for up to 3 weeks. The discovered deforming scar changes resulting from the healing of the entrance gunshot wound are indelible, because To eliminate scars resulting from a gunshot wound to the face, surgical intervention is necessary. Thus, Shpilkov S.M. through negligence caused serious harm to N.’s health, expressed in permanent disfigurement of the face.

Defendant Shpilkov S.M.

During the court hearing, he partially admitted his guilt in the charges brought by the investigative authorities and refused to testify in accordance with Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

In connection with the defendant’s refusal to testify, at the request of the prosecution, in accordance with paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Article 276 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the testimony of Shpilkov S.M., given by him during the preliminary investigation, was examined.

So, according to the interrogation protocol from ** (case files 132-135), suspect Shpilkov S.M. showed that in the winter of 2011. (in January-February) purchased a traumatic pistol “**” for personal use, which he constantly carried with him for self-defense. He knows the rules for handling a pistol and knows how to use it. The pistol was loaded with rubber bullet cartridges. I always kept the cartridges in the clip; there were none in the chamber. He has known N. for 6 months, and friendly relations have developed between them. At the end of March 2011 with his friend T. I took a taxi to the house of block No. ... to meet N. and her friends. Getting out of the taxi, they saw N. and her friend named S.. The latter went to meet them. At that moment the gun was in his jacket pocket. He decided to pull out a gun to play a prank on the girls. T. didn’t say anything, because... this thought came to him spontaneously. Taking the pistol in his right hand, he removed the safety, slightly extended his hand forward and pointed the barrel of the pistol towards the girls. At the same time, the girls were about 5 meters away from them and could see a pistol in his hand. He was sure that there was no cartridge in the chamber, and therefore pulled the trigger. There was a shot that he did not expect. N. sat down on her knees and covered her face. He realized that a shot had been fired and the bullet hit N. in the face. He immediately ran up to N. and began to help her, asking T. to call an ambulance. Taking off his hat from his head, he put it to N.’s nose, where the bullet had hit. Upon the arrival of the ambulance, making sure that N. would receive medical assistance, he left the scene of the incident. The next day he went to the police, where he told about what had happened. Currently he feels guilty towards N..

The guilt of the defendant Shpilkov S.M. in the commission of a crime under the circumstances set out in the verdict, established both by the testimony of the defendant himself and by the testimony of the victim, the legal representative of the victim, witnesses, as well as the materials of the case.

...victim N.

at the court hearing she testified that she met the defendant in the winter of 2011, they developed friendly relations, there were no conflicts or quarrels. ** during the daytime she was with her friends in block No., where they were supposed to meet with Shpilkov and T. The latter drove up to the house in block No. by car. She and S. went to meet the guys. At the same time, when they were at a distance of several meters, Shpilkov took out a pistol from his jacket and extended his right hand with the pistol forward. Shpilkov also uttered some phrase that she thought was humorous, the content of which she does not remember. After that, she heard a pop and felt pain in the nose area. Was she squatting? covered her nose because... there was a lot of bleeding. Shpilkov immediately ran up to her, put his hat to her nose, and began to apologize. Shpilkov said that he did not want this. T., at Shpilkov’s request, called an ambulance, which took her to the hospital. She currently has a scar on her face (near the nose) that is disfiguring. This confuses her, she is embarrassed to go out, and therefore experiences moral suffering.

Legal representative... of the victim M.

at the court hearing, she explained that she knew about the circumstances of the incident from the words of her daughter, namely: when they met on the street in block No. ... Shpilkov took out a pistol, extended his hand forward and fired a shot in his daughter’s face. At the same time, the daughter explained that the shot was accidental, because there were no quarrels with Shpilkov. My daughter has a scar on her face (in the nose area), which disfigures her. Because of this, both her daughter and she experience moral suffering and anxiety. To get rid of a scar, paid plastic surgery is required.

Witness P.,

whose testimony, with the consent of the parties, was read out in accordance with Article 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, during the preliminary investigation, he also explained the circumstances of the incident from the words of his daughter (N.), namely, that ** in the area of ​​​​the house No. No. of the block Shpilkov shot in the face with a traumatic pistol daughters. At the same time, the latter could not explain the reason for Shpilkova’s action, because The relationship between them was friendly, there were no conflicts. Shpilkov himself came to his work, apologized for causing bodily harm to his daughter, and offered money for treatment. However, he did not take the money from Shpilkov and suggested that the latter wait a while to find out the cost of treatment. Currently, my daughter has a scar on her nose, about which she has a complex. The doctor told them that plastic surgery was necessary to get rid of the scar (vol. 1, pp. 106-109).

In general, similar testimony was given at the investigation by witness B.

, who is the grandmother of the minor victim (vol. 1, pp. 189-190).

Witness T.

, whose testimony with the consent of the parties was read out in accordance with Article 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, explained during the preliminary investigation that he had known Shpilkova since childhood and were friends. They also have acquaintances girls - V. and N., with whom they maintain friendly relations. ** he and Shpilkov agreed to meet in the No. block near ... V. and N.. He and Shpilkov arrived at the meeting place by taxi. Getting out of the taxi, he first called V., saying that they had arrived, and then began typing a message to his friend on his cell phone. Shpilkov stood at a distance of 1.5-2 meters from him. At that moment he heard a bang. Raising his head, he saw Shpilkov run up to N., who squatted down and covered her face with her hands. Shpilkov took off his hat from his head and put it on N.’s face to stop the bleeding. N. did not cry or scream. He began to call an ambulance. I didn’t see a pistol in Shpilkov’s hands. Shpilkov apologized to N.. Only then did he realize that Shpilkov shot at N.. After the incident, he repeatedly saw Shpilkov, who explained that he did not want to harm N. and that the shot was accidental (vol. 1, pp. 95 -98).

Witness V.

, whose testimony with the consent of the parties was read out in accordance with Article 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, explained during the preliminary investigation that ** she received a call from T., who offered to meet in block No. .... At that moment she was with N., S. and D.. They agreed to the meeting. After 16 o'clock T. called her back, saying that he and Shpilkov had arrived at the house in block No. She invited N. and S. to stay at house No., while she and D. went to the kiosk. Returning 20 minutes later. I saw N. squatting. Shpilkov was nearby. N. and Shpilkov began to rise. At the same time, N. began to turn her face, and Shpilkov was holding something with his hands near her face. When N. turned her face completely, she saw that N. had blood on her face. T. told her that Shpilkov fired a pistol, hitting N. in the face. Earlier Shpilkov had shown her a pistol, but never threatened her. Shpilkov could not explain his action, because... the shot happened accidentally (vol. 1, pp. 158-161).

In general, similar testimony at the investigation was given by witness D.

(vol. 1, pp. 198-199).

Witness R.

, who is the mother of the defendant, explained at the court hearing that her son had a weapon - a pistol, which he purchased in 2011. My son kept this gun in his nightstand at home. The fact that the son used the said pistol to shoot at the victim N. only learned from the local inspector, who confiscated his son’s permit for a self-defense weapon. The son did not tell her in detail about the circumstances of the incident, saying that the shot happened by accident. The son had friendly relations with the victim girl. Currently, the son regrets what happened, is worried, and has the intention of helping the victim financially.

Written materials from the criminal case are also evidence supporting the accusation:

Excavation and inspection protocols

photographs depicting ... victim N. with bodily injuries on her face, as well as before they were caused (vol. 1, pp. 44-51; 100-105).

Forensic medical examination report

, according to which N. had a gunshot wound to the right nasal area, penetrating into the nasal cavity with the formation and displacement of bone fragments into the nasal cavity and maxillary sinus, concussion, and contusion of the right eye. This injury occurred as a result of a shot from a weapon whose cartridge was loaded with a bullet, and is regarded as an injury that caused minor harm to health due to the short-term health disorder for up to 3 weeks. The discovered deforming scar changes, which were a consequence of the healing of the entrance gunshot wound, are indelible (vol. 1, pp. 60-62).

Excavation and inspection protocols

pistol “**” No. (vol. 1, pp. 122-123; 144-145; 156-157).

Ballistic examination conclusion

, according to which the pistol is a gas pistol “**” No., intended for firing gas and blank cartridges of 9 mm caliber centerfire, as well as cartridges with a 9 mm RA rubber bullet and refers to a civilian gas self-defense weapon, with the ability to fire cartridges with a rubber bullet (vol. 1, pp. 151-153).

Thus, the evidence presented is relevant to the case, obtained in the manner prescribed by law, and in its totality it is sufficient to conclude that Shpilkov S.M. is guilty.

The court agrees with the opinion of the state prosecutor about changing the charges against Shpilkov S.M. towards mitigation by reclassifying the act from Part 1 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to Part 1 of Article 118 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, providing for a more lenient punishment. The position of the public prosecutor is justified, motivated and meets the requirements of the criminal procedure law.

Both at the stage of the preliminary investigation and during the trial, the defendant explained that when he pointed the pistol towards N. and pulled the trigger, he was sure that there was no cartridge in the chamber. His relationship with the victim was friendly, there were no conflicts or quarrels. He just wanted to make fun of N. in this way. The minor victim, as well as witnesses T., V. and D. confirmed the defendant’s arguments as to the absence of conflict, quarrels between S.M. Shpilkov. and N., and that the shot that occurred came as a surprise to S.M. Shpilkov, who immediately ran up to N., began to provide assistance and apologize. Under such circumstances, the court agrees with the opinion of the state prosecutor that there is no evidence confirming the deliberate nature of the actions of the defendant S.M. Shpilkov, aimed at causing harm to N.’s health. At the same time, S.M. Shpilkov, being the owner of a civilian gas self-defense weapon , knowing the rules for handling a pistol and knowing how to use it, with the necessary care and foresight, should have and could have foreseen that as a result of his actions (pointed the pistol towards N., pressing the trigger) serious harm to the victim’s health could be caused.

In this connection, the court qualifies the actions of Shpilkov S.M. according to Part 1 of Art. 118 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

as causing grievous bodily harm through negligence.

Considering that earlier Shpilkov S.M. he was not registered with a psychiatrist, his behavior at the court hearing was adequate, and the court did not have any doubts about the defendant’s sanity. Therefore, the court recognizes him as sane and subject to criminal liability.

When assigning punishment, the court takes into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crime committed, which is careless, belonging to the category of minor gravity, the object of which was human health, the personality of the defendant: Shpilkov S.M. has a permanent place of residence in ..., works ...”, is characterized negatively at his place of residence, as a person violating public order, is characterized positively at his place of work, has no criminal record, is not registered with a psychiatrist or narcologist.

Circumstances mitigating the punishment are the full confession of S.M. Shpilkov. guilt, repentance for the crime, assistance to the victim immediately after the commission of the crime, voluntary partial compensation for moral damage caused as a result of the crime, as well as his young age, state of health and the commission of a minor crime for the first time.

The court did not establish any aggravating circumstances.

Considering the circumstances of the case, the court considers it necessary to appoint S.M. Shpilkov to the defendant. punishment in the form of a fine, since this type of punishment in this case is the most effective in terms of achieving the goals of punishment. When determining the amount of the fine, the court takes into account the gravity of the crime committed by S.M. Shpilkov. a crime classified as minor, the property status of the defendant, his income.

In satisfying the claim of the deputy prosecutor for recovery from Shpilkov S.M. The court considers it necessary to refuse the funds spent on N.’s treatment, since the current legislation does not provide for reimbursement of expenses of medical institutions spent on providing medical care to citizens whose health was harmed by illegal actions committed through negligence.

The legal representative of the victim M. filed a civil claim for recovery from Shpilkov S.M. compensation for moral damage, both in the interests of minor N. for the moral suffering suffered by her daughter as a result of bodily injuries caused by the defendant, in the amount of 500,000 rubles, and in her own interests in the amount of 100,000 rubles.

Discussing the issue of compensation for moral damage to minor N., the court recognizes the plaintiff’s arguments as reasonable. In accordance with Art. 1099 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the grounds and amount of compensation to a citizen for moral damage are determined by the rules provided for by this chapter and Art. 151 of this Code. Article 151 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides that if a citizen is caused moral harm (physical or moral suffering) by actions that violate his personal non-property rights or encroach on other intangible benefits belonging to the citizen, as well as in other cases provided for by law, the court may impose an obligation on the violator monetary compensation for said damage.

When determining the amount of compensation to be recovered, the court takes into account the degree of guilt of the defendant, namely, that the crime he committed was careless, the circumstances under which it was committed, takes into account the degree of moral and physical suffering suffered by a minor girl who was found to have deforming scar changes on the face, resulting from the healing of the entrance gunshot wound, are indelible. In addition, the court takes into account the financial situation of the defendant.

The court does not see any grounds for satisfying the claim regarding compensation for moral damage to the legal representative of M. in the amount of 100,000 rubles. Thus, according to paragraph 2 of Resolution No. 10 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 20, 1994, “Some issues of application of legislation on compensation for moral harm,” moral harm, in particular, may consist of moral experiences in connection with the loss of relatives, the inability to continue active social life life, loss of work, disclosure of family or medical secrets, dissemination of untrue information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen, temporary restriction or deprivation of any rights, physical pain associated with injury, other damage to health or in connection with a disease suffered as a result of moral suffering.

In this case, these circumstances were not established.

The fate of material evidence must be resolved in accordance with Art. 81 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

Based on the aforesaid and guided by Article. Art. 307-309 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, court

SENTENCED:

Recognize Shpilkova S.M.

guilty of committing a crime under
Part 1 of Article 118 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
, imposing a fine in the amount of 30,000 (thirty thousand) rubles, which should be transferred to the following details: UFK for the Irkutsk Region (Office of the Federal Bailiff Service for the Irkutsk Region) , INN/KPP 3811085917/381101001, account No. 40101810900000010001 BIC 042520001 in the GRKTs State Institution of the Bank of Russia for the Irkutsk Region, Irkutsk, OKATO 25401000000, KBK 322 1162101001 0000140.

Preventive measure against Shpilkov S.M. - the undertaking not to leave the place and proper behavior upon entry into force of the sentence - cancel.

In satisfying the prosecutor's claim for recovery from Shpilkov S.M. funds spent by the medical institution on N.’s treatment shall be refused.

Partially satisfy M.’s civil claim by recovering from S.M. Shpilkov. as compensation for moral damage to N. in favor of her legal representative M. 100000

(one hundred thousand of rubles.

Physical evidence: photographs of victim N., stored in the case file, should be stored along with the case file; pistol “**” No., which is a crime weapon and stored in the warehouse of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs for ..., turn into state income.

The verdict can be appealed in cassation to the Irkutsk Regional Court through the Angarsk City Court within 10 days from the date of its proclamation. If the sentence is appealed, the convicted person has the right to petition for his participation in the consideration of the case by the court of cassation.

Chairman: A.M. Lozovsky

Related compounds

At the time of qualification, it is important to distinguish between causing harm to health by negligence under the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation from related offenses.

First of all, this applies to norm 111. The fundamentally important difference between the compositions is the presence of intent. During the investigation, it is necessary to determine whether the accused wanted negative consequences to occur.

During a city festival, a citizen had fun throwing firecrackers at the feet of passers-by. A man passing by did not notice the smoldering fuse on the ground and stepped on the shell during the explosion. This led to amputation of the leg at the knee. The culprit immediately confessed to the violation, helped the investigation and claimed that he did not want to harm anyone.

The prosecutor was able to prove premeditation based on several facts:

1. There was enmity between the accused and the victim.
2. The usual pyrotechnic composition of the firecracker was replaced with an explosive substance, the remains of which were found at the home of the culprit.
3. Street surveillance cameras recorded that the criminal had been following the victim for several days, trying to find out his plans for the holiday.

In legal practice, if there are similar general and specialized norms, qualification is carried out according to a special one, which provides for a greater number of characteristics in comparison with the general one.

If the composition of the norm of Art. 118 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is a component of another crime; qualification is carried out without taking into account 118.

Negligent grave damage must be specified in the disposition of the norm, while in addition there must be other signs relating, for example, to the offender himself or the object.

If an accidental murder occurs, the object will not be the person’s health, but his life. Accidental death is considered by norm 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The remaining circumstances of the crimes are the same.

The distinction by subject is made on the basis of additional characteristics of the person. For example, it was not an ordinary citizen who was inactive, but a doctor at work. Article 124 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation establishes punishment for a person who was supposed to provide assistance on the basis of law or special law.

A separate offense is the following:

• labor protection requirements;
• safety rules at nuclear facilities;
• fire safety requirements;
• transport safety rules.

This list is incomplete.

Each individual case is characterized by additional circumstances specified in the norm. Only in their absence will the offense be qualified under Art. 118. A change in qualifications may occur during a court hearing.

For example, a victim was injured due to a violation of fire safety requirements. But the perpetrator was not properly acquainted with them. This means that the obligation to comply was not assigned. Qualification must be made according to the general norm.

It must be remembered that the severity of the harm remains important. For example, light and moderate damage as a result of an accident is punishable in accordance with the norms of the Code of Administrative Offenses.

Punishment

Art. 118 is divided into 2 points, the first of which considers simply careless infliction of harm, and the second - that which was the result of improper performance of professional duties.

If the crime was committed through negligence, one of the following penalties may follow:

• a fine of 80 thousand rubles or less . Also, according to a court decision, this may be an amount equal to the convicted person’s salary for six months, or another source of his income for the same period.
• Mandatory work . Their duration in this case can be up to 480 hours.
• Correctional labor , the duration of which is up to two years.
• Restriction of freedom – no more than three years.
• Arrest up to six months.

Paragraph 2 of this article implies causing grievous harm unintentionally, but due to improper performance of work duties . This may result in any of the following penalties:

1. restriction of freedom, up to 4 years.
2. Forced labor for up to 1 year.
3. Imprisonment for up to one year.

If forced labor or imprisonment is chosen as a punishment under clause 2, then at the same time the court imposes a ban on certain activities or removal from office with deprivation of the right to hold it.

The duration of this ban is up to 3 years, in some cases it can be assigned indefinitely.