Background and Aim: Judges make mistakes in the issuance or the sentence or in rendering of judgment and according to the Article 171 of Constitution, they cause material or moral spiritual harm to innocent people. In the case of fault, the judges are obliged to compensate the damage and if there is no fault, the government is obliged to compensate the damage.In any case, restoration of prestige mist be claimed from the accused. Therefore, the purpose of present study is to assess the feasibility of compensation.
Materials and Methods: This is descriptive analytical article and has investigated the issue using the library method.Ethical Ethical Considerations: In present study, the princilples of text originality,honesty and trustworthiness have been observed.
Finding: Compensation is of spiritual, material, and possible benefit type. Perviously, there was ambiguity regarding financial compensation.  Such as compensation in the preliminary stage and proof of fault. But now the new Code of Criminal Procedure has approved this matter.
Conclusion: Given the present ambiguity in compensation caused by judge mistake, the unified judicial precedent No 791 was formed and it can be concluded that not only in preliminary stage but also in a stage of determining the punishment, the judge does not take responsibility for compensation for the damage caused by mistake.