ANTIJURICIDAD Y CULPABILIDAD EN EL PERU

Abstract

With this work we want to make known, in what way the guilt and the typicality in Peru, consists in the imputation of an accustomed typified unlawfully. It is presumed that the existence of an unlawful act corresponds to an imputation trial. As it is understood the Antijuricidad and culpability, they are 2 pillars of which the theory of the crime is based. The distinction of both is key and the effects that they become very relevant, it is affirmative about the judgment that prevails the conduct and the typicity, since it refers to the fact, in the same way the trial both intervene in the crime, added to the behavior , and what varies is the penalty that this entails. Thus, that those involved in the same crime, the basis that identifies them is common to all. It follows that the sentence may be different, being a crime committed. It should be understood that there is a difference between unlawfulness and guilt is of quantity and degree: between both categories there is an essential difference, since they are operations of different contents. Antijuricidad (and the typicality) is the operation by virtue of which, through the subsumption, it is verified that a conduct is or is not in accordance with the norm (the type: L.2-L.3 and L.6) , while guilt is an operation of attribution or imputation of something to a subject; specifically, of a typically unlawful act to his agent, by way of reproach. in this case the difference is not http://www.unav.es/penal/delictum/ 2 v.4-2017 N.92 consequence of the fact, but of the enrichment obtained by those who benefit from the crisis situation at the expense of harmed: hence it is the beneficiary and not the author who must respond civilly (restoring the thing used, repairing any damage caused ...).

Keywords: Antijuricidad, Tipicidad, penal