The article raises questions about the characteristics of the qualification of hooliganism based on the subjective side of the crime, as well as based on the alternative mandatory feature of hooliganism, provided for in part 1 of article 213 of the criminal code of the Russian Federation. It is noted that the criteria for distinguishing hooliganism from related compositions are the content of the motive and purpose of the actions performed by the person and the direction of intent. Based on the doctrinal provisions of experts in the field of criminal law and materials of the judicial practice of the Russian Federation in cases of hooliganism for 2018 and 2019, the author analyzes the issues of distinguishing the hooligan motive from hooligan motives. The need to distinguish hooliganism committed on public transport (p“in” part 1 of article 213 of the criminal code) from actions that threaten the safe operation of vehicles (article 267.1 of the criminal code) is indicated. The issue of separating the p “ C “of part 1 of article 213 of the criminal code from the terrorist act (article 205 of the criminal code) and p” b “ of part 1 of article 203 of the criminal code of the Russian Federation from violation of the right to freedom of conscience and religion (article 148 of the criminal code). The author comes to conclusions that confirm the need for the Supreme court to explain what is meant by the hooligan motive (hooliganism motive) and how to distinguish it from other motives, given that it is not specified. Attention is focused on the question of whether such a feature as “publicity” can be considered as a mandatory feature of the composition of hooliganism. Mentioned the question of the relationship and distinguishing disorderly conduct, perfect for transport from article 213 of the criminal code and from article 267.1 of the criminal code. In conclusion, the author concludes that it is permissible to partially decriminalize hooliganism in order to improve judicial practice.

Romanova Anastasia Sergeevna - Assistant of the Department of Criminal Law, Law Institute, Irkutsk State University (1, K. Marx st., Irkutsk, 664003, Russian Federation), e-mail: education.criminallaw@gmail.com

Romanova A.S. Otgranichenie huliganstva ot smezhnyh sostavov [Delimitation of bullying from related compounds]. Sibirskij yuridicheskij vestnik [Siberian Law Herald]. 2020, no 2 (89), pp. 67–70. (in Russian).

343.9

1. Baranchikova M.V. Ugolovnaya otvetstvennost za huliganstvo na transporte i ego otgranichenie ot smezhnyh sostavov prestuplenij. Sibirskij yuridicheskij vestnik, 2019, no. 2, pp. 71-75. (in Rus-sian)

2. Koluntaeva N.N. Ponyatie i obshchie priznaki prestuplenij, so-vershaemyh iz huliganskih pobuzhdenij, v sovremennom ugolovnom zakono-datel'stve. CHelovek: prestuplenie i nakazanie, 2003, no. 2, pp. 29-32. (in Russian)

3. Kommentarij k Ugolovnomu Kodeksu Rossijskoj Federacii. Moscow, 2018, 1376 p. (in Rus-sian)

4. Tayurskaya E.A. Teoreticheskie aspekty opredeleniya ponyatiya do-rozhno-transportnogo prestupleniya. Sibirskij yuridicheskij vestnik, 2017, no. 1, pp. 100-104. (in Russian)

5. SHinkaruk V.M. Problemy zakonodatelnoj reglamentacii pri-znakov sub"ektivnoj storony huli-ganstva. Legal Concept, 2016, no. 1, pp. 194-198. (in Russian)