عنوان مقاله [English]
One of the characteristics of cybercrimes is that perpetrators because of the possibility of anonymity and by finding ways to commit crimes can commit several crimes against multiple victims at the same time. On one hand, some crimes are committed by using methods such as phishing, which encompasses a wide range of victims. On the other hand, according to their personality, the perpetrators of these crimes are familiar with the techniques of committing the crime and also are aware of the criminal laws and regulations, and that the commission of the crimes more than certain numbers has no effect on the amount of their punishment. This makes these rules, which are, as a rule, applicable to individuals whose multiple crimes are exceptions, is not effective for cybercriminals whose single offense is often the exception, and criminal responses do not prevent them from other crimes. The failure to impose penalties, such as deprivation of electronic public services, both as primary punishments and as additional penalties do not prevent these criminals from committing another crime again after sustaining the main penalty. The ambiguity in the regulation of the multiple crimes and unclear boundaries between actual and virtual concurrence of crimes and numerous criminal consequences has led to differences in the determination of appropriate penalties in judicial proceedings. This article, by using a library-based resources and a descriptive-analytical method, in addition to interpretive method seeks appropriate solutions for solving problems.