1912年公布的暫行新刑律第13條第3項規定：「犯罪之事實與犯人所知有異者，依下列處斷：第一、所犯重於犯人所知或相等者，從其所知；第二、所犯輕於犯人所知者，從其所犯」。我們若是純以上開文字為基礎，不加任何限制地理解、適用這個規則，那麼只要一發生錯誤，就一律要從輕罪論處（除非所知與所犯輕重相等），恐怕難以合於現今的犯罪審查體系。在不等價的構成要件錯誤與反面構成要件錯誤同時出現的情形，以及當行為人主觀上對於客觀上存在的罪責減免事實無所認知時，便可明顯看出這樣的結論有何不妥。 依照現今犯罪審查體系，只有當所知與所犯罪名係處於語意上的包含關係，或是我們可以證立相關構成要件均屬同一犯罪類型時，才可以在輕度不法的範圍內成立故意既遂犯。但為了能夠充分評價不法事實，對於超越的部分，仍可能會有未遂或過失的責任。反之，如果錯誤所涉及的罪名，既非處於語意上的包含關係，亦非屬同一犯罪類型，便不可能成立輕罪的故意既遂犯，而應該要就其所知及所犯的罪名分別論處未遂犯與過失犯。在處理共犯踰越的問題時，也應該依據此一判準，只有當相關構成要件是在語意上包含或是屬於同一犯罪類型時，才能肯定共犯的成立，否則即屬現行法所不處罰的未遂參與。

Under Interim New Criminal Law Article 13(c), when a defendant does differs from what he or she knows, the crime is judged according to the following; (1) What a defendant does is the same or more serious than what he or she knows, the crime is judged according to what he or she knows; (2) What a defendant does is lesser than what he or she knows, the crime is judged according to what he or she does. If we read and understand this rule according to the above words unlimitedly, it does not suit our judicial review system today. We can easily know why the result is improper, when a defendant does not know the subject of guilt relief, and not equivalent to elements of error and elements of negative errors occur at the same time. In fact, we can apply ＂what a defendant knows, and what a defendant does rule＂ to classify cases into two catagories according to whether a defendant commits a crime infringing the same essence of legal interest. The two catagories are errors occurring between crimes with different essence and the same essence. When errors occur between crimes with different essence, what a defendant does cannot only be judged by a minor crime unless elements of the crimes are similar to inclusion in a case. In this kind of situation, the defendant knows shall constitute an attempted crime and what he or she does shall constitute a negligent crime. When errors occur between crimes with the same essence, because objective facts and subjective knowledge overlap each other, what a defendant does shall be judged as a minor, intentional and completed crime. However, to judge illegal facts adequately, when a defendant does going beyond what a defendant knows or a defendant knows going beyond what a defendant does, it sh all still constitute an attempt or a negligent crime. To sum up, ＂what a defendant knows, and what a defendant does rule＂ cannot be a standard to solve error cases.