Административная преюдиция по делам о мелком хищении (ст. 7.27 КоАП РФ и ст. 158.1 УК РФ): как большие данные судебных актов отражают гуманизацию и качество правосудия

Трофимов Егор Викторович; Мецкер Олег Геннадьевич; Паскошев Давид Доккаевич

doi:10.25136/2409-7136.2021.9.36521


	Journal Menu > Issues > Rubrics > About journal > Authors > About the Journal > Requirements for publication > Council of editors > Redaction > Peer-review process > Policy of publication. Aims & Scope. > Article retraction > Ethics > Online First Pre-Publication > Copyright & Licensing Policy > Digital archiving policy > Open Access Policy > Open access publishing costs > Article Identification Policy > Plagiarism check policy


	Journals in science databases


	About the Journal

MAIN PAGE > Back to contents

Legal Studies

Reference:

Trofimov E.V., Metsker O.G., Paskoshev D.D. — Administrative prejudice in cases of petty theft (the Article 7.27 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses and the Article 158.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation): how the big data of judicial acts reflect humanization and quality of justice // Legal Studies. – 2021. – № 9. – P. 81 - 124. DOI: 10.25136/2409-7136.2021.9.36521 URL: https://en.nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=36521

Administrative prejudice in cases of petty theft (the Article 7.27 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses and the Article 158.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation): how the big data of judicial acts reflect humanization and quality of justice

Trofimov Egor Viktorovich

ORCID: 0000-0003-4585-8820

Doctor of Law

Deputy Director for Science, St. Petersburg Institute (Branch) of the All-Russian State University of Justice

199178, Russia, g. Saint Petersburg, 10-ya liniya V.O., 19, lit. A, kab. 36

diterihs@mail.ru

Другие публикации этого автора

Metsker Oleg Gennad'evich

ORCID: 0000-0003-3427-7932

PhD in Technical Science

Researcher

199178, Russia, g. Saint Petersburg, 10-liniya V.O., 19 lit. A

olegmetsker@gmail.com

Другие публикации этого автора

Paskoshev David Dokkaevich

Master's Degree, National Research University ITMO

197101, Russia, g. Saint Petersburg, Kronverkskii pr., 49

david.d.paskoshev@gmail.com

Другие публикации этого автора

DOI:

10.25136/2409-7136.2021.9.36521

Review date:

24-09-2021

Publish date:

01-10-2021

Abstract: The subject of this article is the public relations arising in the context of committing petty theft, as well as research means and methods for assessing the optimization of legislation and law enforcement. Due to the specific structure of administrative prejudice, the article presents the methodology and results of the analysis big data of judicial acts in cases of petty theft (the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses and the Article 158.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) for assessing the quality of justice and optimization of legal regulation. The research is founded on the original interdisciplinary methodology, which contains the indicator approach along with the set of legal and computer aided techniques, including intellectual text and data mining, as well as machine learning. It is demonstrated that the judgments of conviction do not have considerable differences in the semantics and logical complexity of decision-making in comparison with the ruling on imposition of administrative penalty; the logic of making decisions on the choice of administrative or criminal penalty for petty theft varies, whereby the choice of administrative penalty is more differentiated. Despite the identity of acts related to administrative prejudice, their regulation by different laws leads to different enforcement results. Administrative-tort regulation is more optimal. Administrative responsibility for petty theft is rather humane for the society overall, although for victims, criminal responsibility appears to be more humane. Having analyzed the array of information, the author extracts certain knowledge on the administrative-tort and criminological characteristics of petty theft alongside peculiarities of court proceeding and imposition of penalties, as well as concludes on applicability of the developed methodology towards analyzing big data of case law on administrative and criminal offenses.

Keywords: machine learning, big data, digital state, improving the legal system, administrative prejudice, humanization, pilferage, text mining, data mining, indicators
This article written in Russian. You can find full text of article in Russian here .

References

1.	Ergasheva Z. E. Administrativnaya preyuditsiya v ugolovnom prave: dis. kand. yurid. nauk. M., 2018. 215 s.
2.	Bogdanov A. V. Administrativnaya preyuditsiya v ugolovnom prave Rossii: dis. kand. yurid. nauk. M., 2019. 251 s.
3.	Leont'eva A. T. Administrativnaya preyuditsiya v ugolovnom zakonodatel'stve Rossii i zarubezhnykh stran // Simvol nauki. 2008. № 3. S. 60–63.
4.	Kurchenko V. N. Paradigma administrativnoi preyuditsii v ugolovnom prave // Ugolovnoa pravo i kriminologiya. 2018. № 2. S. 10–21.
5.	Sinel'shchikov Yu. P. Administrativnaya preyuditsiya v sovremennom ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve: teoriya i praktika // Gosudarstvo i pravo. 2020. № 1. S. 86–92. DOI 10.31857/S013207690008354-1.
6.	Poslanie Prezidenta Rossiiskoi Federatsii Federal'nomu Sobraniyu Rossiiskoi Federatsii ot 03.12.2015 // Rossiiskaya gazeta. 2015. 4 dekabrya. № 275.
7.	Postanovlenie Konstitutsionnogo Suda Rossiiskoi Federatsii ot 10.02.2017 № 2-P po delu o proverke konstitutsionnosti polozhenii stat'i 2121 Ugolovnogo kodeksa Rossiiskoi Federatsii v svyazi s zhaloboi grazhdanina I. I. Dadina // Vestnik Konstitutsionnogo Suda Rossiiskoi Federatsii. 2017. № 2.
8.	Gravina A. A. Gumanizatsiya ugolovnogo zakonodatel'stva i ee rol' v preduprezhdenii prestuplenii v sfere predprinimatel'skoi deyatel'nosti // Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava. 2019. № 8. S. 85–95. DOI: 10.12737/jrl.2019.8.8.
9.	Bochkarev I. E. K voprosu o kriminalizatsii administrativnykh pravonarushenii putem ispol'zovaniya administrativnoi preyuditsii // Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta im. N. I. Lobachevskogo. 2019. № 5. S. 76–87.
10.	Neznamova Z. A., Neznamov A. V. Administrativnaya preyuditsiya kak kriterii kriminalizatsii protivopravnogo deyaniya // Ugolovnoe pravo i kriminologiya. 2018. № 2. S. 4–9.
11.	Kirienko M. S. Sistemnyi analiz Osobennoi chasti Ugolovnogo kodeksa Rossiiskoi Federatsii: monografiya. M.: Yurlitinform, 2018. 240 s.
12.	Skoblikov P. A. Chastichnaya dekriminalizatsiya poboev i drugikh nasil'stvennykh deistvii kak novyi etap sovremennoi ugolovnoi politiki // Gosudarstvo i pravo. 2019. № 10. S. 83–93.
13.	Udarit' nel'zya sudit': mneniya za i protiv dekriminalizatsii semeinykh poboev // TASS [Sait]. URL: https://tass.ru/obschestvo/3971405
14.	Miting protivnikov zakona o dekriminalizatsii semeinykh poboev // RBK [Sait]. URL: https://www.rbc.ru/photoreport/12/02/2017/58a0984c9a79473fe3e27d4d
15.	Otmenit' zakon o dekriminalizatsii poboev v sem'e! [Petitsiya] // Demokrator [Sait]. URL: https://democrator.ru/petition/otmenit-zakon-o-dekriminalizacii-pervogo-sluchaya/
16.	Zakonoproekt o dekriminalizatsii domashnego nasiliya proshel vtoroe chtenie // INTERFAX.RU [Sait]. URL: https://www.interfax.ru/russia/546886
17.	Administrativnaya preyuditsiya v ugolovnom prave: Kazus Il'dara Dadina // Zakon. 2017. № 2. S. 21–29.
18.	Odoev O. S. Administrativnaya preyuditsiya v ugolovnom prave: istoriko-pravovoi i institutsional'no-doktrinal'nyi analiz // Ugolovnoe pravo i sovremennost': sb. nauch. st. Vyp. 5 / otv. red. G. A. Esakov. M.: Prospekt, 2014. S. 289–300.
19.	Yunusov A. A., Serkova T. V. Administrativnaya preyuditsiya v rossiiskom ugolovnom prave // Aktual'nye problemy ekonomiki i prava. 2015. № 1. S. 278–282.
20.	Prosochkin A. M. Administrativnaya preyuditsiya kak novyi etap bor'by s khishcheniyami chuzhogo imushchestva // Yurist''-Pravoved''. 2016. № 3. S. 63–68.
21.	Smirnov A. V., Kalinovskii K. B. Ugolovnyi protsess. SPb.: Piter, 2004. 697 s.
22.	Chernov Yu. I. Vzaimosvyaz' printsipov administrativno-deliktnogo i ugolovnogo protsessov // Aktual'nye voprosy publichnogo prava. 2013. № 8. S. 119–132.
23.	Trofimov E. V., Metsker O. G. Metodologiya kachestvennoi otsenki optimizatsii zakonodatel'stva i pravoprimenitel'noi praktiki na osnove analiza bol'shikh dannykh del ob administrativnykh pravonarusheniyakh // Pravo i politika. 2020. № 10. S. 10–26. DOI: 10.7256/2454-0706.2020.10.34250.
24.	Osborne J. W. Best Practices in Data Cleaning: A Complete Guide to Everything You Need to Do Before and After Collecting Your Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2012. 275 pp.
25.	Metsker O., Trofimov E., Sikorsky S., Kovalchuk S. Text and Data Mining Techniques in Judgment Open Data Analysis for Administrative Practice Control // Communications in Computer and Information Science. 2019. Vol. 947. Pp. 169–180. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-13283-5_13.
26.	Metsker O., Trofimov E., Petrov M., Butakov N. Russian Court Decisions Data Analysis Using Distributed Computing and Machine Learning to Improve Lawmaking and Law Enforcement // Procedia Computer Science. 2019. Vol. 156. Pp. 264–273. DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2019.08.202.
27.	Metsker O., Trofimov E., Grechishcheva S. Natural Language Processing of Russian Court Decisions for Digital Indicators Mapping for Oversight Process Control Efficiency: Disobeying a Police Officer Case // Communications in Computer and Information Science. 2020. Vol. 1135. Pp. 295–307. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-39296-3_22.
28.	Metsker O., Trofimov E., Kopanitsa G. Application of Machine Learning Metrics for Dynamic E-justice Processes // Conference of Open Innovations Association FRUCT. 2021-January. Vol. 1. Pp. 293–300. DOI: 10.23919/FRUCT50888.2021.9347598.
29.	Otchet o rabote sudov obshchei yurisdiktsii po rassmotreniyu del ob administrativnykh pravonarusheniyakh za 12 mesyatsev 2017 g. (forma 1-AP) // Sudebnyi departament pri Verkhovnom Sude Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Sait]. URL: http://www.cdep.ru/userimages/sudebnaya_statistika/2017/F2-svod-2017.xls
30.	Otchet o rabote sudov obshchei yurisdiktsii po rassmotreniyu del ob administrativnykh pravonarusheniyakh za 12 mesyatsev 2018 g. (forma 1-AP) // Sudebnyi departament pri Verkhovnom Sude Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Sait]. URL: http://www.cdep.ru/userimages/sudebnaya_statistika/2019/F2-svod_vse_sudy-2018.xls
31.	Otchet o rabote sudov obshchei yurisdiktsii po rassmotreniyu del ob administrativnykh pravonarusheniyakh za 12 mesyatsev 2019 g. (forma 1-AP) // Sudebnyi departament pri Verkhovnom Sude Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Sait]. URL: http://www.cdep.ru/userimages/sudebnaya_statistika/2020/F2-svod-vse_sudy-2019.xls
32.	Otchet o rabote sudov obshchei yurisdiktsii po rassmotreniyu del ob administrativnykh pravonarusheniyakh za 12 mesyatsev 2020 g. (forma 1-AP) // Sudebnyi departament pri Verkhovnom Sude Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Sait]. URL: http://www.cdep.ru/userimages/sudebnaya_statistika/2021/F2-svod-vse_sudy-2020.xls
33.	Otchet o chisle privlechennykh k ugolovnoi otvetstvennosti i vidakh ugolovnogo nakazaniya za 12 mesyatsev 2017 g. (forma 10.1) // Sudebnyi departament pri Verkhovnom Sude Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Sait]. URL: http://www.cdep.ru/userimages/sudebnaya_statistika/2018/k4-svod-2017.xls
34.	Otchet o chisle privlechennykh k ugolovnoi otvetstvennosti i vidakh ugolovnogo nakazaniya za 12 mesyatsev 2018 g. (forma 10.1) // Sudebnyi departament pri Verkhovnom Sude Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Sait]. URL: http://www.cdep.ru/userimages/sudebnaya_statistika/2019/k4-svod_vse_sudy-2018.xls
35.	Otchet o chisle privlechennykh k ugolovnoi otvetstvennosti i vidakh ugolovnogo nakazaniya za 12 mesyatsev 2019 g. (forma 10.1) // Sudebnyi departament pri Verkhovnom Sude Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Sait]. URL: http://www.cdep.ru/userimages/sudebnaya_statistika/2020/k4-svod_vse_sudy-2019.xls
36.	Otchet o chisle privlechennykh k ugolovnoi otvetstvennosti i vidakh ugolovnogo nakazaniya za 12 mesyatsev 2020 g. (forma 10.1) // Sudebnyi departament pri Verkhovnom Sude Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Sait]. URL: http://www.cdep.ru/userimages/sudebnaya_statistika/2021/k4-svod_vse_sudy-2020.xls
37.	Skoblikov P.A. Oshibki v tolkovanii ugolovno-pravovoi normy ob otvetstvennosti za prichinenie imushchestvennogo ushcherba (st. 165 UK RF) // Zakon. 2017. № 4. S. 103–113.
38.	Otchet o chisle privlechennykh k ugolovnoi otvetstvennosti i vidakh ugolovnogo nakazaniya za 12 mesyatsev 2015 g. (forma 10.1) // Sudebnyi departament pri Verkhovnom Sude Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Sait]. URL: http://www.cdep.ru/userimages/sudebnaya_statistika/2015/k4-svod-2015.xls
39.	Otchet o chisle privlechennykh k ugolovnoi otvetstvennosti i vidakh ugolovnogo nakazaniya za 12 mesyatsev 2016 g. (forma 10.1) // Sudebnyi departament pri Verkhovnom Sude Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Sait]. URL: http://www.cdep.ru/userimages/sudebnaya_statistika/2016/f10_1-svod-2016.xls
40.	Trofimov E. V., Metsker O. G. Ispol'zovanie komp'yuternykh metodov i sistem v izuchenii prava, intellektual'nom analize i modelirovanii pravovoi deyatel'nosti: sistematicheskii obzor // Trudy Instituta sistemnogo programmirovaniya RAN. 2020. T. 32, vyp. 3. S. 147–170. DOI: 10.15514/ISPRAS-2020-32(3)-13.
41.	Zeng Y., Wang R., Zeleznikow J., Kemp E. A knowledge representation model for the intelligent retrieval of legal cases // International Journal of Law and Information Technology. 2007. Vol. 15, № 3. Pp. 299–319.
42.	García R., Delgado J. An ontological approach for the management of Rights Data Dictionaries // Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX’2005). Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2005. Pp. 137–146.
43.	Griffo C., Almeida J. P. A., Guizzardi G. A pattern for the representation of legal relations in a legal core ontology // Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX’2016). Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2016. Pp. 191–194.
44.	Saravanan M., Ravindran B., Raman S. Using legal ontology for query enhancement in generating a document summary // Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX’2007). Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2007. Pp. 171–172.
45.	Rissland E. L., Daniels J. J., Rubinstein Z. B., Skalak D. B. Case-based diagnostic analysis in a blackboard architecture // Proceedings of the 11th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’93). Menlo Park: AAAI Press/MIT Press, 1993. Pp. 66–72.
46.	Stevens C., Barot V., Carter J. The next generation of legal expert systems — New dawn or false dawn? // Research and Development in Intelligent Systems XXVII: Incorporating Applications and Innovations in Intelligent Systems XVIII: Proceedings of AI’2010. London: Springer, 2011. Pp. 439–452.
47.	Gifford M. LexrideLaw: An argument based legal search engine // Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL’17). New York: ACM, 2017. Pp. 271–272.
48.	Libal T., Steen A. NAI — the normative reasoner // Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL’19). New York: ACM, 2019. Pp. 262–263.
49.	Dunn M., Sagun L., Şirin H., Chen D. Early predictability of asylum court decisions // Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL’17). New York: ACM, 2017. Pp. 233–236.
50.	Grabmair M. Predicting trade secret case outcomes using argument schemes and learned quantitative value effect tradeoffs // Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL’17). New York: ACM, 2017. Pp. 89–98.
51.	Zhong L., Zhong Z., Zhao Z., Wang S., Ashley K.D., Grabmair M. Automatic summarization of legal decisions using iterative masking of predictive sentences // Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL’19). New York: ACM, 2019. Pp. 163–172.
52.	Mozina M., Zabkar J., Bench-Capon T., Bratko I. Argument based machine learning applied to law // Artificial Intelligence and Law. 2005. Vol. 13, № 1. Pp. 53–73.
53.	Ashley K. D., Walker V. R. Toward constructing evidence-based legal arguments using legal decision documents and machine learning // Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL’13). New York: ACM, 2013. Pp. 176–180.
54.	Torrisi A., Bevan R., Atkinson K., Bollegala D., Coenen F. Automated bundle pagination using machine learning // Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL’19). New York: ACM, 2019. Pp. 244–248.
55.	McGinnis J. O., Stein B. Originalism, hypothesis testing and big data // Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL’15). New York: ACM, 2015. Pp. 201–205.
56.	Maurushat A., Moses L.B., Vaile D. Using “big” metadata for criminal intelligence: Understanding limitations and appropriate safeguards // Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL’15). New York: ACM, 2015. Pp. 196–200.
57.	Vasil'ev V. V., Gracheva A. V., Rodionov A. I., Blekanov I. S. Grafovye metody vyyavleniya semanticheski znachimykh tekstov sudebnykh reshenii // Protsessy upravleniya i ustoichivost'. 2019. T. 6, № 1. S. 234–239.
58.	Kurcheeva G., Rakhvalova M., Rakhvalova D., Bakaev M. Mining and indexing of legal natural language texts with domain and task ontology // Communications in Computer and Information Science. 2019. Vol. 947. Pp. 123–137.
59.	Sokolova E. V., Mitrofanova O. A. Avtomaticheskoe izvlechenie klyuchevykh slov i slovosochetanii iz russkoyazychnykh tekstov s pomoshch'yu algoritma KEA // Komp'yuternaya lingvistika i vychislitel'nye ontologii. 2017. № 1. S. 157–165. DOI: 10.17586/2541-9781-2017-1-157-165.
60.	Grokhol'skaya Z. A. Klyuchevye slova — soderzhatel'nyi obraz dokumenta: rekomendatsii po metodike otbora i sostavleniya. Barnaul: Alt. KUNB im. V. Ya. Shishkova, 2010. 14 s.
61.	Trofimov E., Metsker O. Computer Techniques and Indicators in the Policy of Optimization of Legislation and Law Enforcement // Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research. 2020. Vol. 489. Pp. 60–63. DOI: 10.2991/assehr.k.201212.012.
62.	Metsker O., Trofimov E., Kopanitsa G. Application of Machine Learning for E-justice // Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2021. Vol. 1828. Paper 012006. 10 pp. DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/1828/1/012006.
63.	Trofimov E. V., Metsker O. G. Indikatory optimizatsii zakonodatel'stva i pravoprimeneniya i metody ikh identifikatsii i ispol'zovaniya na osnove bol'shikh dannykh (opyt vychislitel'nykh eksperimentov na sudebnykh aktakh po delam ob administrativnykh pravonarusheniyakh, predusmotrennykh glavoi 18 Kodeksa Rossiiskoi Federatsii ob administrativnykh pravonarusheniyakh) // Yuridicheskie issledovaniya. 2020. № 9. S. 33–46. DOI: 10.25136/2409-7136.2020.9.34149.
64.	Trofimov E. V., Metsker O. G. Petrov M. V. Komp'yuterno-yuridicheskaya metodologiya kachestvennoi otsenki optimizatsii zakonodatel'stva i sudebnoi praktiki na osnove analiza bol'shikh dannykh: metody i metriki na primere administrativno-deliktnoi sfery // Aktual'nye voprosy razvitiya gosudarstvennosti i publichnogo prava: materialy VI mezhdunar. nauch.-prakt. konf. (Sankt-Peterburg, 25 sent. 2020 g.): v 2-kh t. / redkol.: D. V. Rybin (pred.) [i dr.]. SPb.: S.-Peterb. in-t (fil.) VGUYu (RPA Minyusta Rossii), 2020. T. 1. S. 175–178. DOI: 10.47645/978-5-6044512-3-6_2020_1_175.
65.	Metodologiya kachestvennoi otsenki optimizatsii zakonodatel'stva i sudebnoi praktiki na osnove analiza bol'shikh dannykh: otchet o NIR (promezhutoch. za pervyi etap) : nauch. proekt № 20-011-00837 A, poluchivshii podderzhku RFFI / S.-Peterb. in-t (fil.) VGUYu (RPA Minyusta Rossii); ruk. Trofimov E. V. SPb., 2020. 46 s. № gos. registratsii 221041800034-9.
66.	Metsker O. G., Trofimov E. V. Sovershenstvovanie administrativno-deliktnogo regulirovaniya na osnove elektronnykh dannykh sudebnoi praktiki // Pravo. Obshchestvo. Gosudarstvo: sb. nauch. tr. studentov i aspirantov. T. 4 / redkol.: D. V. Rybin (pred.) [i dr.]. SPb.: S.-Peterb. in-t (fil.) VGUYu (RPA Minyusta Rossii), 2018. S. 140–151. DOI: 10.47645/978-5-6040755-4-8_2018_4_140.
67.	Lipinskii D. A. O psevdogumanizatsii karatel'nogo vozdeistviya ugolovnoi otvetstvennosti // Pravo i politika. 2005. № 7. S. 143–148.
68.	Gravina A. A. Gumanizatsiya ugolovnogo zakonodatel'stva i ee rol' v preduprezhdenii prestuplenii v sfere predprinimatel'skoi deyatel'nosti // Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava. 2019. № 8. S. 85–95. DOI: 10.12737/jrl.2019.8.8.
69.	Gustova E. V. O problemakh gumanizatsii ugolovnogo zakonodatel'stva // Vestnik Omskoi yuridicheskoi akademii. 2019. T. 16, № 1. S. 55–50. DOI: 10.19073/2306-1340-2019-16-1-55-59.
70.	Ekimov A. A. Gumanizatsiya ugolovnogo zakonodatel'stva // Molodoi uchenyi. 2015. № 9, ch. 8. S. 834–836.
71.	Esakov G. A., Dolotov R. O., Filatova M. A., Redchits M. A., Stepanov P. P., Tsai K. A. Ugolovnaya politika: dorozhnaya karta (2017–2025 gg.) / Tsentr strategicheskikh razrabotok. M., 2017. 73 s. URL: https://www.csr.ru/uploads/2017/04/Report-CP.pdf
72.	Malkov V. P. Administrativnaya preyuditsiya: za i protiv // Vestnik Akademii General'noi prokuratury Rossiiskoi Federatsii. 2011. № 3. S. 58–64.
73.	Osnovnye pokazateli raboty sudebnykh pristavov-ispolnitelei FSSP Rossii za yanvar'-dekabr' 2020 g. (forma № 1-1) // Federal'naya sluzhba sudebnykh pristavov [Sait]. URL: https://fssp.gov.ru/files/fssp/db/files/02021/vso_2020_202121107.zip
74.	Ivanchin A. V. O pol'ze razumnogo ispol'zovaniya administrativnoi preyuditsii v ugolovnom prave ( v svyazi s postanovleniem Konstitutsionnogo Suda RF ot 10 fevralya 2017 g. № 2-P) // Ugolovnoe pravo. 2017. № 4. S. 50–53

Link to this article

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.