Cognition mistakes of facts can be divided into concrete (specific) cognition mistakes of facts and abstract cognition mistakes of facts. Concrete cognition mistakes of facts refer to the situation that the facts recognized by the actor are inconsistent with the facts that actually occur, but they are within the situations that constitute same crime (also referred to the mistake within the composition of the same crime). The theory of criminal law generally believes that concrete cognition mistakes of facts include object mistake, method mistake, and causality mistake. Concerning the concrete cognition mistakes of facts, there is mainly a dispute between the doctrines of concrete accord and the doctrines of legally prescribed. The former believes that when the facts recognized by the actor are specifically consistent with the actual facts, then the intentional accomplished crime can be established; the latter argues that as long as the facts recognized by the actor and actual facts are consistent within constitution of a crime, then the intentional accomplished crime can be established.