Without the law, there is no imperfection. There is no illegality without conformity to typicality, and there is no imperfection without illegality. Typicity is a prerequisite for illegality, and illegality is a prerequisite for imperfection. It is also accepted that the verb is illegal when it meets the legal definition . Because the legal definition defines unlawful behavior by type. In other words, a behavior is typified because it is illegal. Since the establishment of illegality is a function of compliance with legal recognition, there is no need for positive elements that establish other illegality besides compliance with legal recognition. Compliance with legal recognition of behavior indicates a violation of the law. In other words, the realization of the legal definition constitutes the presumption of illegality. When the perpetrator realizes the legal definition that constitutes injustice, it arises that the legal order does not approve of this behavior. If a situation has arisen indicating that unauthorized behavior is exceptionally lawful, in the concrete case, the violation of the act is denied. In other words, if there is a reason for compliance with the law, the verb is not illegal. Although the fact that the verb meets the definition of a crime regulated in the legal definition constitutes a presumption of illegality, it does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it is illegal. Therefore, after determining the suitability of the verb for legal recognition, it is necessary to check whether there is a reason for compliance with the law that removes the violation of the law. Reasons for compliance with the law are events that make the commission of injustice illegal, despite the fact that the movement violates the legal definition. In other words, if the reasons for compliance with the law have been realized, the injustice of the verb can no longer be mentioned.

Bir cevap yazın

E-posta hesabınız yayımlanmayacak. Gerekli alanlar * ile işaretlenmişlerdir