CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PUNISHMENT APPOINTMENT FOR CRIME COMMITTED BY GROUP, GROUP WITH PRELIMINARY AGREEMENT, ORGANIZED GROUP AND CRIMINAL ASSOCIATION
( Pp. 119-122)

Problem. The causes of the preparation of the article are the difficulties in the process of punishment appointment for the crime, committed in complicity, which were exposed in the result of the analysis of the Criminal Code of Russia and law enforcement. Model. The study was performed with the formally juridical and relatively legal methods, with the functional and statistical approaches and analysis and synthesis methods. Conclusion. Analyses of The Criminal Code of Russia and of the scientific literature shows a high public danger of group forms of complicity, what implies more severe punishment for people committed such crimes compared with the people committed crime individually. The author offers to supplement some elements of crimes by qualifying features «group», «group with preliminary agreement», «organized group». Practical importance. The author offers to optimize and improve Criminal Code of Russia by means of supplement some elements of crimes by qualifying features. Value. Conclusions and proposals of the article can be used in the legislative work, in the preparation of the guideline interpretations of The Supreme Court of Russia and in the scientific and study process.

Yankovsky D.A., (2015), CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PUNISHMENT APPOINTMENT FOR CRIME COMMITTED BY GROUP, GROUP WITH PRELIMINARY AGREEMENT, ORGANIZED GROUP AND CRIMINAL ASSOCIATION. Gaps in Russian Legislation, 3 => 119-122.

Ugolovnyy kodeks Rossiyskoy Federatsii ot 13 iyunya 1996 g. № 63-FZ (red. ot 30 marta 2015 g.) (s izm. i dop., vstup. v silu s 07 aprelya 2015 g.) // Sobranie zakonodatel stva Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 1996, № 25.
Aynutdinova K.A. Obshchie kriterii individualizatsii nakazaniya pri ego naznachenii // Probely v rossiyskom zakonodatel stve. 2010. № 1.
Blagov E.V. Naznachenie nakazaniya. Teoriya i praktika. YAroslavl , 2002.
Gorodnova O.N. Spravedlivost ugolovnogo zakona i nakazaniya: zakonodatel stvo i praktika // Probely v rossiyskom zakonodatel stve. 2011. № 1.
Dzhekabaev U.S., Vaysberg L.M., Sudakova R.N. Souchastie v prestuplenii. Alma-Ata, 1981.
Dimchenko N.V. Otvetstvennost za prestupleniya, sovershennye v souchastii: teoreticheskie i prikladnye aspekty / Diss kand.yurid.nauk. Moskva, 2006.
Dolgopolov K.A. Naznachenie nakazaniya za prestuplenie, sovershennoe v souchastii // Probely v rossiyskom zakonodatel stve. 2012. № 4.
Ivanov N.G. Ponyatie i formy souchastiya v sovetskom ugolovnom prave. Saratov, 1991.
Ilidzhev A.A. Naznachenie nakazaniya za prestuplenie, sovershennoe v souchastii / Diss kand.yurid.nauk. Kazan , 2004.
Kruglikov L.L. Smyagchayushchie i otyagchayushchie otvetstvennost obstoyatel stva v sovetskom ugolovnom prave. YAroslavl , 1977.
Kruglikov L.L. Traktovka gruppy lits v noveyshikh dissertatsionnykh issledovaniyakh // Uchenye zapisi Kazanskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Tom 14. YUridicheskie nauki. Kazan , 2002.
Kubov R.KH. Osobennosti kvalifikatsii slozhnykh form souchastiya/ Avtoref. diss kand.yurid.nauk. M., 2003.
Sidiryakova M.V. Naznachenie nakazaniya uchastnikam gruppovykh prestupleniy / Diss kand.yurid.nauk. Kazan , 2003.
Sobolev V.V. Osnovanie i differentsiatsiya otvetstvennosti souchastnikov prestupleniya / Avtoref. diss kand.yurid.nauk. Krasnodar, 2000.
Tel nov P.F. Otvetstvennost za souchastie v prestuplenii. M., 1974.

group crime, the sentencing, the degree of public danger, qualifying features, differentiation of punishment.