當代刑事法學理論中，關於「錯誤」理論之分類，往昔多區分為「事實錯誤」和「法律錯誤」兩大類；但現在通行之用語，則區分為「構成要件錯誤」和「違法性認識錯誤」（「違法性認識錯誤」則是文暫且不涉及之課題）；前者涉及構成要件該當性，後者則涉及違法性。兩大類而「構成要件錯誤」又可分為「具體的事實錯誤」（如：客體錯誤、打擊錯誤、因果關係錯誤）和「抽象的事實錯誤」（如：「以有為無」、「以無為有」、「所知輕於所犯」、「所知重於所犯」）。在《唐律》中的相關規範，當以「客體錯誤」、「打擊錯誤」及「抽象事實錯誤」中的所知輕於所犯最為具體。本文認為，唐代雖然常被稱為古代中國最早依據「律令格式以為治」的時代，也是我國固有律令制度發展成熟的時代；然而，在《唐律》之中卻並未能夠針對「錯誤」理論設立概設立概括規定，反而是散見於是《唐律‧名例律》、〈鬬訟律〉及〈雜律〉之中，卻缺乏通則性的概括規定，是其明顯不如當代法之處。其次，在《唐律》之內，雖然具有類似於「客體錯誤」、「打錯誤」與「抽象事實錯誤」之相關規範，但在「抽象事實錯誤」一項中，卻僅有「所知輕於所犯」一種，缺乏其他三種規定，亦是《唐律》不如當代刑事法學的又一例。不過，雖然《唐律》具有這些缺失，倒也不足以判定《唐律》確實不如現代刑事法學；換言之，《唐律》與現代刑事法學的優劣得失，尚須經過更多元、更全面、更深入的比較研究後，方可論斷。

In modern jurisprudential thought, “Irrtum”means actor whose subjective recognition is different from objective existence or the facts. Recognition is a condition of intentionaloffense. The actor must have recognition and decide to make something happen, thereby resulting in their being punished. When an actor has misconceived, this will influence his criminal responsibility.That is to say, there is an intimate relationship between an actor’s conception, their decision, and the facts. In the past, the types of “Irrtum” in jurisprudence could be divided into two varieties: one was“Tatsachenirrtum” and the other was “Rechtsirrtum”. The current terms are “Tatbestandsirrtum”and “Irrtum ueber die Rechtswidrigkeit”. The theory of “Irrtum”in Chinese traditional code is not as good as that of modern jurisprudence. However, Zhouli 周禮did make mention of three conditions of pardon: the first was about mistaken identity; the second was about negligent crime; and the third was about oblivion. The first and second conditions are related to the theory of “Irrtum”in criminal jurisprudence. In Chang-Fei’s Han-Chin lu xu zhu 漢晉律序注 there is also mention of the concept of “Irrtum”. Therefore, we find a parallel theory to that of “Irrtum” in the Chinese traditional code. The modern jurisprudence is long-standing. Although the Tang Code did not establish a standard theory about “Irrtum”, there are some similar standards found in the “Tang Code’s Section on General Principles of Tang Code”, the “Tang Code’s Section on Fight and Litigation” and the “Tang Code’s Section of Miscellaneous Articles of Tang Code”. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the “Act of Rescue”in the Tang Code. Second, the program will analyze the continuity and variability of the legislative spirit found in the Song, Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasties. Finally, the Program will comparatively study the “Act of Rescue”between Tang Code and Present Code, in order to observe their similarities and dissimilarities.