Forensic classification of military criminal offences and the place of abuse of power or authority by a military official

The relevance of this study is conditioned by the increasing significance of legal mechanisms in ensuring law and order, discipline, and responsibility of military leadership under martial law and combat situation. The purpose of this study was to theoretically investigate the key aspects affecting the qualification and investigation of criminal offences under Article 426-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and to identify the problems and shortcomings related to the application of current legislation in proving the guilt of the perpetrator of such an offence. The methodological toolkit included a set of general scientific and special methods of legal analysis. The legal method was employed to analyse current legislation, the historical legal method – to investigate the evolution of legal provisions, the comparative legal method – to compare various approaches to the application of national legislation in practice, etc. This analysis was aimed at determining the place of the criminal offence under study in the system of forensic classification of military criminal offences. The study identified the elements determining the specifics of their investigation and providing them with a forensic characterisation to develop effective methods for investigating abuse of power or authority by military personnel. Based on the findings, the study provided a theoretical legal characterisation of the subject of the offence under study, which is a military officer. The study analysed such legal categories as special period, martial law, and combat situation. The specifics of abuse of power and official authority in the military sphere were identified. The study described the key aspects of military subordination and clarified the concepts of a military commander and a military superior. The study proposed to supplement the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Military Duty and Military Service” in the part relating to the category of “military official” to ensure harmonisation of legislative provisions governing legal relations in the military sphere with criminal law provisions prescribing liability for offences against the established procedure for military service

The article revises the correlation between the provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (hereinafter - CC of Ukraine) on abuse of power or official position (Art. 364) and on abuse of power or official authority (Article 365) after the amendments made by the Law of Ukraine No. 746-VII dated February 21, 2014 “On Amendments to the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine regarding the implementation of Article 19 of the UN Convention against Corruption into national legislation”. The key issues addressed in the article are: is the abuse of power or official authority committed by other persons (other than a law enforcement officer), and which at the same time are not covered by other provisions of the CC of Ukraine on abuse of power or official authority, not criminalized? And can such abuse of power or official authority be considered a form of abuse of power or official position? Based on the results of the scientific review, it is proved that the criminal law concept of abuse of power or official position for the purpose of obtaining unlawful benefit in fact unconditionally means going beyond the limits of authority, and therefore includes abuse of power or official authority (except for those committed by a law enforcement officer or provided for by other variant provisions of the criminal law of Ukraine). At the same time, the provision on abuse of power or official position (Article 364 of the CC of Ukraine) cannot be considered general in relation to the provision on abuse of power or official position (Article 365 of the CC of Ukraine), since the criminal offense defined by it contains an indication of the purpose - obtaining an unlawful benefit, which is not a mandatory element of the criminal offense of abuse of power or official position. The rules enshrined in Articles 364 and 365 of the CC of Ukraine are variant rules, part of the so-called association of rules on different elements of abuse of power or position. If an act contains both elements of a criminal offense - abuse of power or official position and abuse of power or official authority (for example, abuse of power or official authority committed by a law enforcement officer with the aim of obtaining an unlawful benefit), the act should be qualified under the provision providing for a more severe punishment (Article 365 of the CC of Ukraine).

Introduction. The article gives a criminal-legal characterization of the violent abuse of power or official authorities by a law enforcement officer. The importance of establishing criminal law signs of physical or mental violence in each case of such a criminal offense is indicated. It is concluded that the changes that were made to Article 365 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine cannot be considered successful. It is pointed out that the national criminal legislation cannot develop effectively if foreign experience in combating crime by criminal law means is not taken into account. The use of the comparative method in legal research is an important mean of improving the theory and practice of applying any legislation, including criminal law. Its only purpose should be to eliminate flaws in criminal legislation. Summary of the main research results. The paper provides a comparative legal analysis of national and foreign legislation on criminal responsibility for violent abuse of power and official authority. On this basis, it was concluded that it is necessary to introduce foreign experience in criminal law counteraction to violent abuse of power or official authority. According to the author, the provisions that should be introduced into national legislation are as follows: the subject of abuse of power or official authority should be any official, and not just a law enforcement officer; as a qualified element of this criminal offense, the commission of an excess with the use of physical violence or the threat of using such violence should be added; recognition of the inexpediency of indicating the infliction of bodily harm directly by excess of power or official authority; in the event of death, serious bodily injury or suicide of the victim, the actions of the perpetrator must be qualified under the relevant part of Art. 365 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine on the grounds of the onset of grave consequences; the motives and purpose of committing such a criminal offense should not affect the qualification, but should be taken into account when imposing criminal punishment on the perpetrators. The article analyzes the rulings of the Judicial Chamber for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, which determine the ratio of parts 1 and 2 of Article 365 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine on the specifics of qualifying forcible abuse of power or official authority and the need to establish the monetary equivalent of non-property damage in cases of such a criminal offense. The author proposes to change the approaches of judicial practice in the latter case. In preparing the article, general scientific and special methods were used. Thus, dogmatic and formal-legal methods were used in the analysis of the criminal law norm, which provides for criminal responsibility for violent abuse of power or official authority. The comparative method was applied when comparing the criminal legislation of Ukraine with the corresponding norms of the laws on criminal responsibility of other countries. A statistical method was used to study legal practice. Conclusions. The article draws scientifically based conclusions and offers author's recommendations for improving the current legislation on criminal responsibility for abuse of power or official authority by a law enforcement officer, namely: it is proposed to recognize all officials as the subject of this criminal offense; as a qualified element of this criminal offense, the commission of an excess with the use of physical violence or the threat of using such violence should be taken into account; it is not appropriate to indicate in the law directly to the infliction of bodily harm in excess of power or official authority; in the event of the death of the victim or the infliction of grievous bodily harm on him, the actions of the perpetrator must be qualified under the relevant part of Art. 365 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine on the grounds of the onset of grave consequences; he motives and purpose of committing such a criminal offense should not affect the qualification, but should be taken into account when imposing criminal punishment on the perpetrators; physical, mental and other non-property harm in case of violent abuse of power or official authority should not be assessed according to the rules for causing property damage (one hundred or more times the non-taxable minimum income of citizens). The need for a legislative definition of the concept of physical and mental violence is indicated.

Since the introduction of martial law and general mobilization, the number of criminal offenses committed by military personnel has increased dramatically. According to the Office of the Prosecutor General, the number of criminal offenses under Art. 426-1 “Abuse of power or authority by a military official” increased 4 times in 2022 and amounted to 426. The practice of qualifying military criminal offenses shows significant problems of law enforcement and uneven criminal law and procedural decisions. These problems are primarily due to the lack of resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine on the practice of applying the rules governing liability for military criminal offenses, as well as due to the blanket nature of their dispositions. In this regard, there is an urgent need for a theoretical study of criminal liability issues, in particular, Article 426-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine “Excess of power or official authority by a military officer”. to determine the objective and subjective features of the analyzed criminal offense. The author analyzes the main theoretical and applied issues of criminal liability for abuse of power or authority by a military official under the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The author considers the problematic issues of defining the elements of this criminal offense and its individual features. It is established that the mandatory presence of an additional optional direct object is of great importance for the criminal offense under consideration. The author emphasizes the problems which arise when determining the content of abuse of power, abuse of office, and the content of the concept of “substantial damage”. The objective side of the abuse of power or authority by a military official is also considered in detail. It is established that abuse of power or authority by a military official belongs to the material elements of crimes.

The article considers the problem of general awareness of the legally significant properties of military offences (crimes, misdemeanours), their relationship with other types of offences, which is actually an urgent task, especially for the science of military law and the integration of legal science � general theory of law. Based on the analysis of terminological and conceptual aspects of military offences (crimes, misdemeanours), their own typology, legal features and features of the composition, the author of the article proposes their generalized definition as �military torts�. The study of the essence and content of military tort as a phenomenon of modern legal science, as well as ways to prevent, detect and stop it, is a special, special law enforcement tool within the leading institute of military law. Further study of the phenomenon of military tort provides an opportunity to form an independent complex scientific field - military tort. It is proved that the causes and conditions of offences in the Armed Forces of Ukraine involve a complex set of factors, processes and phenomena. At the same time, they are characterized by a number of features due to the specifics of military service and the activities of troops (forces). For example, the activities of personnel, internal order, military life and other military-public relations, which are regulated as much as possible by the rules of military statutes. In addition to military statutes, military-public relations are regulated by other rules of law, for example, the scope of criminal law is much broader � servicemen are responsible for committing both general crimes and military criminal offences. Considering the subject of research, which is a �military tor� as a phenomenon of modern legal science, it should be noted that in the theory of law and in the practice of personnel in the direction of legal support of military formation used phrases such as �military administrative offences�, �criminal offences�. Against the established order of military service (military criminal offences)�, �war crimes�, �military and disciplinary offences in the military sphere�, �criminal order or instruction �, etc. Therefore, there is a problem in determining the meaning of terms, and there are several reasons for this. The first, classic - the definition of the term allows you to outline the subject of research and discussion, the range of related problems. Another is the problem of the spread of offences in the military sphere, i.e. ensuring the national security and defense of Ukraine, due to its specificity is global (phenomenal) and therefore can be most effectively solved only if joint efforts are made at both international and national levels. Ensuring their effective interaction directly depends on a consistent understanding and interpretation of terminology in the direction of the study of lawful behaviour or the causes and conditions of deviant �tort� behaviour of service members. Thus, we see that the epistemological processes of formation of military torts as a phenomenon of scientific and legal category is characterized by a certain inconsistency, ambiguity and fragmentation, generated by situational aspects of necessity. However, we can determine that a military tort is a set of illegal (anti-social) acts (crimes or misdemeanours) provided by the current criminal legislation of capable subjects of military-public relations, encroaching on the foundations of national security, organization of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and public order. Understanding and understanding of the acquired knowledge should be the basis for improving the institution of legal responsibility of servicemen in the military sphere as a fundamental means of protection, mechanism, guarantor, designed to ensure regulatory, protective and protective function of military law, without which the existence and development of modern Ukrainian army is impossible.

The relevance of the subject matter under investigation was due to the need to improve the methodology for investigating criminal offences committed by military personnel in armed conflict. This will contribute to the establishment of the rule of law by adhering to the norms of national legislation and international legal standards for conducting hostilities and ensuring the protection of the civilian population during armed conflict. The aim of the study was to form a comprehensive forensic characteristic of military personnel exceeding their authority or official powers in order to develop effective and efficient mechanisms for their investigation. The methodological toolkit of the study encompassed a complex of general scientific and special methods that ensured a comprehensive study of the causes and conditions of military personnel exceeding their authority and official powers, and also contributed to the formation of scientifically sound approaches to their investigation, including: the comparative legal method for analysing legislative norms regulating legal relations in the military sphere; the formal-logical method for clarifying legal definitions on the research topic; the context analysis method for systematic processing of scientific approaches to investigating military offences, and also the inductive method for generalising the obtained results. The main elements of the forensic characteristic of the investigated criminal offence have been identified and analysed. These elements are divided into general and special, or contextual. They include: the place, time, and period of commission the unlawful acts, the identity of the offender, the purpose, motives, and conditions that contributed to the commission of the criminal offence, the methods of implementing criminal acts (intentions), the identity of the victim, the socially dangerous consequences of the offence, the degree of their danger, and also the connection of the investigated criminal offence with actions that imply a different criminal legal qualification or exclude criminal liability for the committed act. The scientific significance of the obtained results lies in the improvement of the f ve as a basis for creating methodological guidelines for investigating these types of criminal offences

The article investigates the concept of the method of committing a crime as an element of the criminalistic characteristic of abuse of power or official authority by a law enforcement officer with the use of firearms or special means. The procedural and criminalistic aspects of this unlawful activity are analyzed, with attention to the distinctive features of such crimes and the specifics of their investigation. The method of committing a crime is an important element of the criminalistic characteristic, as it allows for the qualification of the suspect’s actions, determination of the circumstances of the crime, and identification of ways to uncover it. The author provides a detailed examination of the methods of using firearms and special means during the abuse of power or official authority, focusing on the legal limits that define the permissibility of such use of force. Particular attention is given to cases where law enforcement officers, in violation of their official duties, use firearms or special means for purposes other than intended, which may lead to violations of citizens’ rights and abuse of their powers. The article also explores the tactical aspects of investigating such crimes, particularly the methods of gathering evidence that can confirm the fact of abuse of power, as well as the use of modern technologies for documenting violations. The author provides practical recommendations for improving police practices, particularly in the context of investigating cases where law enforcement officers use firearms or special means within the scope of their official duties. The conducted research shows that the choice of the specific method of committing the abuse of power or official authority by a law enforcement officer with the use of firearms or special means depends on a range of circumstances that influence the officer’s actions. The article makes an important contribution to the development of criminalistic science and practice, as it highlights specific elements that allow for the effective qualification of crimes committed by law enforcement officers using firearms or special means, and provides valuable recommendations for improving the investigation process.

The features of detention of a person who has committed a criminal offence are analysed. The main features of the legal nature of the relevant institution in the system of pre-trial investigation of criminal offences are presented, and also the idea of the main range of problematic issues arising in the course of implementation of the relevant provisions of law is summarised. The author provides arguments on the procedural grounds for applying detention of a person committed a criminal offence, and also outlines the main forensic (general and special) features of its implementation. Detention of a person who has committed a criminal offence is a temporary measure of restraint applied on the grounds and in accordance with the procedure established by the CPC of Ukraine by an authorised official (police officers, military personnel and other persons authorised by relevant laws to carry out detention) in respect of a person committed a criminal offence (i.e. an act for which the main penalty is a fine of not more than three thousand tax-free minimum incomes or other punishment not involving imprisonment). The detention of a person who has committed a criminal offence should be distinguished from administrative detention, as they differ in the grounds, terms and procedure. The practice of using administrative detention for the purposes of criminal proceedings is unacceptable, as the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly pointed out. Prospect for the further research is the need to analyse the measures of restraint used during the pre-trial investigation of criminal offences, as well as to clarify the existential content and essence of the relevant institution, and its importance for the criminal justice system in general.

Background. Clinical psychology is one of the main branches of psychology that specializes in studying and treating various mental disorders and issues, preventivemeasures for mental illnesses, diagnosis of diseases and pathological conditions, as well as the influence of psychocorrective methods on the recovery process [1–3]. Within the framework of clinical psychology, various mental health problems such as depression, anxiety, eating disorders, addiction, post-traumatic stress disorders, and others are considered and treated. Purpose – to evaluate the role of clinical psychology in the military environment, clarify and emphasize the ethical aspects faced by clinical psychologists in the military sphere. Materials and Methods. An analytical literature review was conducted, and based on the obtained data, a training course was developed for psychologists and practical psychologists of healthcare institutions with over 5 years of experience in the healthcare system, who were transferred to the position of «Clinical Psychologist», allowing to investigate the effectiveness of training and the necessity of this specialization, to examine the level of assistance provided to different samples worked with by practical psychologists in hospitals (military personnel, internally displaced persons), and the level of effectiveness of providing different levels of psychological assistance after specialization and implementation of the protocols developed by us. A random sampling method was used for the survey of the subjects. Research methods: systemic analysis, questionnaire survey, statistical analysis. Results. It has been established that clinical psychologists often encounter ethical dilemmas arising from their dual identity as psychologists and military personnel, as well as from the unique context and mission of military service. This article provides a summary of unique aspects of clinical practice in the military sphere with a particular emphasis on those elements that exacerbate ethical challenges. Prior to providing psychological assistance and after the war-related trauma in Ukraine, psychologists conducted research on the levels of anxiety, depression, and stress among servicemen and veterans. The basic survey consisted of 21 questions assessing symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress levels among servicemen and veterans. Various levels of depression were observed in 78.11 ± 2.58% of servicemen and veterans, while mild, moderate, and severe levels of stress were found in 84.07 ± 2.59% of individuals, and various levels of anxiety were present in 88.1 ± 2.48% of cases. After rehabilitation, the level of depression decreased by 24.21%, the level of stress by 25.07%, and the level of anxiety by 28.52%. Conclusions. The obtained results justify the need to improve approaches to the training and retraining of psychologists and practical psychologists working in healthcare institutions with more than 5 years of experience in the healthcare system, who are transferred to the position of «Clinical Psychologist».

The unlawful seizure of property of an enterprise, institution or organisation is a fairly common criminal offence in the field of business activity. This criminal offence causes economic losses to both business entities and the state as a whole, reduces the level of economic security and, as a result, the level of investment, discredits the work of government agencies, undermines the authority of the state at the international level, etc. In order to overcome and prevent economic risks, it is necessary to develop a methodology for investigating a criminal offence under Article 206-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The purpose of the study is to define the concept of “forensic characteristic of unlawful seizure of enterprise, institution or organisation property”, to clarify the role of such forensic characteristic in the methodology of investigation of this criminal offence, and also to establish the sources of information for the purpose of forming a forensic characteristic. To achieve the stated purpose of the study, a thorough analysis of the scientific forensic literature, the results of investigative and judicial practice has been carried out. In the process of summarising the views of scholars, the article establishes that the main, basic, initial element of the forensic methodology is the forensic characteristic of the criminal offence under study. Based on the results of a comprehensive analysis, it has been established that the forensic characteristic of unlawful seizure of property of an enterprise, institution or organisation should be considered an information model of this criminal offence which consists of a set of generalized information about its interrelated forensically significant features. With regard to the importance of forming a forensic characteristic, two directions of its use have been distinguished i.e., theoretical and practical. The article analyses the sources of obtaining the information necessary for forming a forensic characteristic of the unlawful seizure of property of an enterprise, institution or organisation, and as a result of this analysis, two main sources of information are identified: documents and persons.

The article is devoted to the disclosure of the concept and content of the prevention of military offenses; definition of criteria for dividing military offenses into categories (types); establishing the specifics of disciplinary, administrative and criminal military offenses in the context of the organization of the system for their prevention. It is proposed that the concept of prevention of military offenses should be understood as a specific direction of the state and society’s activities, which is implemented in the military sphere, concerns military personnel, and is aimed at preventing, eliminating, and neutralizing the causes and conditions that may cause military personnel to commit disciplinary, administrative, and criminal offenses, as well as at termination of crimes that have already started, other illegal actions among military personnel. It is substantiated that the prevention of military offenses in the conditions of unprecedented military and political challenges facing the Defense Forces of Ukraine is one of the prerequisites for achieving such a level of management of military units that would best ensure the fulfillment of the tasks of defense and protection of Ukraine set before the Defense Forces, ensuring its sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of state borders. It was determined that the purpose of preventing military offenses is to limit the effect of negative social phenomena and processes in the environment of military personnel, to eliminate the causes and conditions that contribute to the commission of offenses; neutralization of the negative influence of the microenvironment, which forms or can form an antisocial attitude of a serviceman, negatively affecting his behavior; exerting influence on military personnel who, by their moral and psychological qualities, are capable of committing offenses or other antisocial actions. It has been proven that the system of military offenses consists of military disciplinary, military administrative, and military criminal offenses. The definition of the concept of military disciplinary, military administrative, military criminal offenses is proposed, their signs and content are disclosed. It is substantiated that at least three categories of special ties function in the system of prevention of military offenses. Namely, these are connections related to the features of: a) the object of criminogenic influence; b) means and forms of its implementation; c) legal status of implementation entities. Military offenses, not being a direct element of the prevention system, belong to the category that mediates the goal of preventive measures, namely, it is the subject, the total and individual number of which is planned to be reduced. It is assumed that the further improvement of the theoretical foundations of the prevention of military offenses should be connected with the study of the institutional components of the mechanism of its implementation, which, in the end, should contribute to the effective performance by the Defense Forces of tasks related to the implementation of the defense and protection of Ukraine, deterring the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, fight her off.

The widespread aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine has led to an increase in the number of people in vulnerable situations, including a significant increase in the cases of disappearances and hostage-taking. In this regard, there is a need to improve the methods of investigating the hostage-taking of government officials or law enforcement officers. When developing and formulating an appropriate investigation methodology, it is first of all necessary to determine the forensic characteristics of the relevant crime. The purpose of the article is to define the concept, purpose, sources of formation and elements of the forensic characteristic of hostage-taking of a government official or a law enforcement officer. To achieve this goal, the following methods were used: analysis to work with the existing views of scholars on the issues of forensic characteristics; comparison to summarise information on the seizure of people both in the world and in Ukraine; and the scientific functional method to determine the purpose of forensic characteristics. As a result of the study, it has been established that there are some developments in the formation of various methods for investigating criminal offences, but there is no methodology for investigating the hostage-taking of a government official or a law enforcement officer. Therefore, there is a need, first of all, to formulate a forensic characteristic of the crimes under investigation, which will serve as the first step in the development of the investigation methodology. The concept of “forensic characteristics of hostage-taking of a government official or a law enforcement officer” has been defined as an important component of the forensic methodology, which is a detailed description of a criminal offence which will serve as a basis for solving practical problems arising during the pre-trial investigation. It has been clarified the theoretical and practical role of forensic characteristics, and two types of sources of information necessary for its formation have been identified: persons who have information about a criminal offence, including law enforcement officers, experts and specialists, and other participants to criminal proceedings; as well as relevant documents. Scientific positions on determining the composition of a forensic characteristic have been analysed and typical elements of the forensic characteristic of a hostage taking of a government official or a law enforcement officer have been identified: the circumstances of the crime, the method of its commission, traces of the crime, tools and means, the identity of the victim and the identity of the perpetrator.

In the modern conditions in which Ukrainian society found itself — a full-scale war, the introduction of martial law — the legislator and law enforcers of the norms of criminal law faced problems related to bringing to justice for criminal offenses, in particular, of a violent nature. Criminal liability for violent criminal offenses with a special subject and a special victim needs additional research. This applies to violent criminal offenses committed by and against military personnel (certain types of military criminal offences), military and civilian personnel of the occupying country. The purpose of this study was to identify modern problems of criminal responsibility for violent crimes under martial law and to make proposals for their solution through the lens of martial law. It was established that the criminal offenses of servicemen of the Armed Forces are covered by the provisions of Chapter XIX “Criminal offenses against the order of military service (military criminal offences)”, including if they are committed against the civilian population. The current legislation of Ukraine in this area needs some improvement. It is worth making changes in Art. 401 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, noting that the commission of an insult to honor and dignity, a violent criminal offense against a serviceman, by a civilian who is not conscripted, qualifies under Art. Art. 4351 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. It is proposed to include in Art. 433 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine a note in which to determine which criminal acts include violence against the population. The mechanism of criminal prosecution for violent crimes on the territory of Ukraine, including in the temporarily occupied territories, by military personnel and civilians of the occupying country also needs improvement: it is proposed to develop a special regulatory legal act that will contain clear instructions for prosecuting the specified subjects objects. Taking into account the relevance of the research topic, as well as the number of unresolved issues in this area, this article is aimed not only at solving certain issues in the area of responsibility of special subjects for violent criminal offenses, but also opens up a number of promising directions within this direction of criminal-legal countermeasures by individual types of violent offenses in the conditions of a special period, including martial law. Key words: violent criminal offenses, crimes, criminal liability, military serviceman, martial law, special subject, special victim, order of military service, military criminal offenses, violation of laws and customs of war, violence against the population, insult to honor and dignity.

. The article deals with some aspects of investigating theft of citizens' luggage at the airport. The features of forensic characteristics for faster investigation of the investigated category of criminal offenses are considered. The author emphasizes that the creation of a stable system is a prerequisite for the effectiveness of any activity. The process of pre-trial investigation of criminal offenses is not an exception. An important element of the methodology of investigation of a particular criminal offense is its forensic characteristics. This element allows law enforcement officials to build versions and determine the direction of criminal proceedings at its initial stage. At the same time, when investigating theft of citizens' luggage at the airport, the initial stage is in many cases crucial. It provides an opportunity to gather sufficient evidence that will be lost over time without being able to recover it. Therefore, the issue of research and development of the cur-rent forensic characteristics of the offense is important for the investigation as a whole. It is also noted that the forensic characteristics of the citizens' luggage theft committed at the airport is a system of generalized evidence of the studied materials of the forensic practice, which reflect the connection and correlation of individual forensically significant elements that can be used in the pre-trial investigation of a specific criminal offense. The system of the designated category consists of the following elements: method of preparation, commission and concealment of a criminal offense; the subject of the assault; the situation of committing a criminal offense; a trace picture; the person of the offender; the identity of the victim.

As is well known, the rule of law is the principle that power should be exercised based on laws enacted and revised by the legislature. Therefore, the rule of law is a principle that power cannot be arbitrarily exercised or exercised by a person in power, but must be exercised only on the basis of law. In other words, the rule of law is to prevent abuse of power by limiting the arbitrary and subjective exercise of power by requiring the exercise of power to be based on the law. However, opinions are still divided as to why the rule of law is necessary and what it means. The rule of law is a principle to prevent and limit abuse of power by requiring the exercise of power to be based on the law, or guarantee and protect individuals' freedom and rights by limiting the exercise of power to be based on the law. These various views on the rule of law are related to what the national community wants to achieve through the rule of law. I think that the exercise of power is to prevent abuse of power and to guarantee and protect individuals' freedom and rights by demanding that it be based on the law. In other words, when the exercise of power is arbitrary and subjective by the person in power, it only brings about the expansion of power, but individual freedom and rights are bound to be limited. Therefore, the rule of law should be exercised on the basis of 'law' rather than the subjective will of individuals or power, and infringement of individual freedom and rights by powerful people or power groups should not be recognized without the basis of law. However, given that the law is enacted by the power group and reflects the subjective will of the power group, it is problematic to call it the rule of law if the exercise of power is based on the law. This is because if power is exercised based on the law only by the arbitrary and subjective will of the powerful person or the power group, it can be reduced to a tool that can suppress individual freedom and rights. In other words, if power is exercised based on laws only for power people or power purposes, it can mean the expansion of power, not the restriction and abuse of power. Therefore, if the purpose of the rule of law is to guarantee and protect individuals' freedom and rights, the law for the rule of law should be recognized only when power is exercised based on the law that is recognized as having practical effect to guarantee and protect individuals' freedom and rights.