Sentences of courts for cruelty to animals, article 245 of the Criminal Code

[Адвокат]

FRASE
En nombre de la Federación de Rusia
Zlatoust 08 de noviembre de 2007

Juez de paz del tribunal complot No. 7 de la ciudad de Zlatoust, región de Chelyabinsk, Zakirova S. L.
cuando el secretario Steinberg E.M.
con la participación del fiscal asistente fiscal adjunto de la ciudad de Zlatoust L. Shapovalova
acusado C.,
representante legal de la víctima K.,
examinó en audiencia pública en los locales de la corte el caso penal contra S., nacido en 1977, con educación secundaria incompleta, sin trabajo, no condenado, acusado de cometer un delito, en virtud del artículo. 245 h. 1 del Código Penal,
instalado:
S. 01 de septiembre de 2007 en la noche, en estado de ebriedad en el patio de la casa 5 en la calle. Lenin en el pueblo El distrito central de Zlatoust de la región de Chelyabinsk, junto con el infante K., nacido en 1997, recogió un gatito a la edad de aproximadamente tres meses y en presencia de un joven K. golpeó deliberadamente al gatito contra la pared de un garaje de concreto, tratándolo cruelmente y queriendo matarlo. . Después de esto, S., continuando sus intenciones dirigidas a la crueldad hacia los animales y dándose cuenta de que a través de sus acciones causa sufrimiento moral al joven K., que era consciente de la naturaleza de las acciones crueles de S. en relación con el gatito, golpeó deliberadamente al mismo gatito con varios golpes de metal. bloquear en el área de la cabeza. Las acciones deliberadas indicadas de S. causaron la muerte de un gatito.
El acusado S. se declaró culpable en la audiencia, se arrepintió y explicó que había matado al gatito porque no se había desarrollado y estaba enfermo. Lamenta que todo sucedió en presencia de los hijos de K-howl.
La culpabilidad de S. está confirmada por el testimonio del representante legal de la víctima K., quien demostró que el 01 de septiembre de 2007, ocurrió un escándalo entre ella y S., después de lo cual S. mató al gatito, mientras su hija menor Olga y la mayor Svetlana, de 17 años, estaban presentes. Después del incidente, las hijas estaban muy preocupadas;
materiales del caso: informe (ld 2), declaración (ld, protocolo para revisar la escena del incidente (ld 7), certificado de nacimiento (ld 81).
Las acciones de S. están correctamente calificadas en la Parte 1 del Art. 245 del Código Penal - como trato cruel a los animales, que llevó a su muerte, si este acto se cometió en presencia de menores.
Cuando S. es sentenciado, el juez de paz tiene en cuenta la naturaleza y el grado de peligro público del delito cometido, que pertenece a la categoría de gravedad menor, la identidad del autor no ha sido condenada previamente, se caracteriza satisfactoriamente por los vecinos y el comisionado de distrito en el lugar de residencia (ld 97, 98), No tiene un trabajo permanente.
Como circunstancias atenuantes, el juez de paz admite que S. se declaró totalmente culpable, se arrepintió. No se han establecido circunstancias agravantes. En este sentido, considera la posible aplicación del art. 73 del Código Penal en relación con S.
Basado en lo anterior, guiado por el artículo. 308, 309 Código de Procedimiento Penal, Juez de paz
ENVIADO
Reconocer a S. culpable de un delito en virtud de la Parte 1 del art. 245 del Código Penal, y lo sentenció a trabajo correccional por un período de seis meses con la deducción del veinte por ciento de su ingreso mensual en los ingresos del estado al servir en lugares determinados por el gobierno local de acuerdo con el cuerpo que ejecuta el castigo en forma de trabajo correccional, pero en el área Residencia de S.
Basado en el art. 73 del Código Penal de la Federación de Rusia, el castigo impuesto por S. se considerará condicional con un período de prueba de seis meses, obligándolo a presentarse periódicamente en la inspección penal ejecutiva para el registro, no cambiar su lugar de residencia permanente sin notificar a la inspección penal ejecutiva, no visitar el lugar de venta de bebidas alcohólicas, estar en casa después del 22 horas
Medida preventiva antes de la entrada en vigor de la oración C. deje un reconocimiento de no irse.
El veredicto se puede apelar ante el tribunal de la ciudad de Zlatoust dentro de los diez días a partir de la fecha del anuncio a través del juez magistrado sentenciado.

Juez de paz: Zakirova S. L.
Secretario: Steinberg E.M.
Fuente: https://drug.2x2forum.ru/t237-topic

 

[Адвокат]

SENTENCE
In the name of the Russian Federation
R. Severo-Yeniseisky October 30, 2009

Judge of the North Yenisei District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Territory Kovalev O. Yu.
with the participation of the public prosecutor, deputy prosecutor of the North Yenisei region Kokorin M.V.,
defendant H.A.A.,
defender of the lawyer A. Vasilkovsky, who submitted certificate No. 123 and warrant No. 175,
when the secretary Josu N.V.
as well as the injured M.M. AND.,
examined in open court the materials of the criminal case number 1-39 / 09g. in a relationship
N.A.V., who was born on March 19, 1990 in the village of Teya, North Yeniseysky District, Krasnoyarsk Territory, a citizen of the Russian Federation, Russian, with the formation of 9 classes, not military, not married, not working, living in the river. n. Severo-Yeniseyskiy, st. Donskoy, apt. previously convicted:
- May 29, 2008 Lesosibirsk City Court under paragraph "a" part 2 of Art. 166 of the Criminal Code to 1 year 6 months. imprisonment, probation with a trial period of 1 year,
- 06/15/2009 North Yenisei District Court for hours. 1 Article. 166 of the Criminal Code on the basis of h. 5 Article. 74; Art. 70 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation partially attached the unexecuted part of the sentence of the sentence dated May 29, 2008. and finally assigned to 3 years in prison, on the basis of the cassation ruling of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court of September 17, 2009. the assigned punishment N.A. V. according to Part 1 of Art. 166 of the Criminal Code was reduced to 1 year 6 months in prison, on the basis of Art. 70 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for the aggregate of sentences to the assigned punishment, an unserved punishment was partially added to the sentence of May 29, 2008. and finally assigned 2 (two) years of imprisonment in a penal colony of general regime,
accused of committing crimes under Part 1 of Art. 245, part 3 of article 150 of the Criminal Code,
installed:
ON THE. V. committed cruel treatment of animals, resulting in mutilation if the act was committed using sadistic methods, in the presence of a minor, and committed the juvenile to commit a crime by threats or otherwise committed by a person who has reached the age of eighteen, committed with violence and with the threat of its use.
The crimes were committed in the following circumstances:
June 2, 2009 at about 21 hours Nikiforov, being in the apartment of the house on the street. Uritsky r.p. North Yenisei, Krasnoyarsk Territory, saw a cat belonging to M.M.A. N. had an intention to abuse the animal. For this purpose N., reliably knowing that E.Yu.Yu. He is a minor, namely, born in 1997, for whom criminal proceedings were refused because of a lack of corpus delicti, he suggested the latter cut off the tail of the cat, which E. refused. Then N. took a utility knife and, catching a cat, together with E. went into the courtyard of the house. Being near the barn in the courtyard of the house, N. handed E. a knife and again offered the latter to cut off the tail of the cat, but E. refused. N. expressed the threat of bodily harm to E. in the event of refusal of violence against a cat. E. Fearing the further use of physical violence against him, he agreed. Realizing his criminal intent aimed at cruel treatment of the animal, which led to his mutilation, using sadistic methods, expressed in causing prolonged suffering to the animal, knowing that the knife is poorly sharpened and does not have the necessary cutting properties, N. began to hold the cat, and E. began to cut off the tail of the cat with a knife. N. using violence, inflicted E. a kick on the leg, as a result of which the young E., fearing the further use of physical violence against him, cut off the tail of the cat. According to the act of inspection of the animal KGBU "North Yenisei Veterinary Department" from 05.06.2009g. animal cat has physical damage complete absence of caudal vertebrae. N.'s criminal actions led to mutilation of the animal.
Defendant N.A. V. guilty of committing a crime under Part 1 of Art. 245 of the Criminal Code fully recognized, and in committing a crime, under Part. 3 Article. 150 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation partially and showed that E. he knows two years and knows how old E. is. On June 2, he and E. drank alcohol and came to M’s house. The cat in the apartment recovered on the bed. He threw the cat, it hit the jamb. E. took a knife from the nightstand and began to strike at the furniture with a knife. The cat pissed him off and he decided to cut off the tail of the cat. He suggested that E. cut off the tail of the cat and E. from the third time agreed. Catching a cat, they left the house. He held the cat by the legs, and E. cut off the tail with a knife to the cat. He did not kick E., but only persuaded. Indications N.A. V., the data in court differ from the testimony of the data at the preliminary investigation and from those read out at the request of the prosecutor in accordance with Art. 276 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation testimony of Nikiforov (ld 91-94) it follows that they cut off the tail of the cat twice. The defendant explained that his testimony, but he certainly does not remember whether this was so.
Assessing the testimony of the defendant N.A. B. during the trial, the court concludes that the testimony of the defendant who pleaded partially guilty about the circumstances of the incident does not correspond to reality and regards his position as his chosen method of defense, the defendant's desire to avoid proper liability for the crimes committed and mitigate his responsibility.
The court finds guilt N.A.V. fully proven set of admissible evidence obtained in the manner prescribed by law and reviewed during the trial.
The victim M.M. A. showed to the court that in the evening of 2 June N. and E.Yu. and asked Sh.Yu. He left home. The Gorelovs told him that the kitten had their tail cut off. He found that his cat had his tail cut off. The tail was found in the garden and was seized. He found a knife under the bed. There were no cat stools on the bed. The furniture was not damaged with a knife. The civil lawsuit does not state.
Witness E.Yew.Yew. testified that N. he knows 2 years. N. 19 years. He told N. how old he was and that he did not have a passport. On June 2, he and N. drank alcohol. In the evening they went to M. to take the debt from Sh. At home was M., who then left. N. began to chase the cat M., kicked, hit the jamb. Then he took a cat and a knife and dragged it by the barn. N. told him to cut the cat’s tail. He refused to do it. N. said that he would hit him in the leg. N. held the cat, and he held the tail and began to cut off the tail of the cat with a knife. He told N. that was enough. He stopped cutting the tail of the cat. N. kicked him in the leg. He took a knife and cut off the tail of a cat. Someone shouted to them and they ran away. The severed tail remained in the garden. He felt sorry for the cat, he could not stop cutting the cat’s tail, because N. would have made him do it. He was afraid of N. and if he began to run away, then N. would have caught up with him and made him cut off his tail.
Assessing the evidence of witness E., the court notes that they are consistent and logical. The testimony of the witness is confirmed by other evidence that establishes the same facts. He has no reason to stipulate N. In this connection, the court has no reason not to trust the testimony of witness E. and to doubt their veracity.
The testimony of witness E. is also confirmed by the testimony of witness M.M.A. which the court showed that 02.06.2009g. son Yu came after 22 hours and the smell of beer came from him. In the morning from the police officers she became aware of what had happened. The son explained that he was afraid of N. He threatened him, forced him to cut off the tail of his cat and kicked him with his foot. On June 5, she saw a “good” bruise on her son’s leg.
Witness G.A.P. the court showed that in the evening a cat was screaming strongly in the garden. He saw that two guys caught M.'s cat, and one of them was with a knife. He shouted to them, they threw a cat and ran into M.'s apartment. On the ground he saw a cat's tail.
Witness G.O.V. the court showed that on June 2 at about 9 pm they heard a cat screaming strongly on the street. They saw a cat without a tail, and two boys ran in and ran out of M.'s apartment through a window. One of them was wiping a knife on the grass. On the board, they saw the tail of a cat. After that, they called the police. Later, M. explained that he cut off the tail of his cat.
Witness G.L.V. she showed to the court that in the evening she saw N. and another boy who behaved suspiciously. Then they ran away. G. came running and from them she found out that M.'s cat had their tail cut off and the cat was screaming violently. The teenagers jumped out of the window of M.'s apartment. She saw a cat M., who had no tail.
Witness Sh.I.I. the court showed that 03.06.09g. G. received a statement on prosecution of adolescents who cut off a cat's tail. During the audit it was found that N. and E.Yu. cut off the tail of the cat MN held the cat, and E. cut the tail. In M.'s apartment there was a cat with no tail. A tail-like item was found. E. explained that N. put pressure on his manhood and “incited” it. A knife was found in M.’s apartment. K. recorded that the seized item, similar to the tail, is the tail of this particular cat.
From the read out testimony of a specialist K.N.N. (ld 37) it follows that 05.06.2009g. she examined the cat, which at the time of the inspection was completely missing a tail. When examining a wound, bleeding was not detected, the wound is approximately one - two-day in nature. A stump departs from the sacro-pelvic bone - 2-3 caudal vertebrae, which (the stump) are distorted - there is an impact with a blunt object with a cutting surface. The skin on the cult is absent, the muscles on the cult have torn edges, sometimes absent. Police officers presented an organic item in a plastic bag, which was the tail of the cat. According to the police, it became known that the cat had its tail cut off in domestic conditions, that is, without the use of appropriate painkillers. In the tail of cats there are many nerve endings, and two caudal large veins, and if there is a medical need for amputation of the tail (for example, in case of injury, inflammation), anesthesia and appropriate therapy are used. The tail of cats does not carry any functional load, however, during such “operations”, the cat could die from bleeding, infection, inflammation, as well as from pain shock. At the moment of tail “amputation”, the cat experienced severe pain. Physical damage to a cat is regarded as an action leading to mutilation.
In addition, the fault of N.A. C. The commission of the specified crimes confirms:
- G.'s statement on the prosecution of N.A., which 02.06.09g. at 22 o’clock near the house number on the street. Uritsky cut off the tail of the cat (l.d.
Protocol inspection of the scene houses on the street Uritsky village of Severo-Yeniseyskiy, during which a cat was found that did not have a tail, a knife and a tail fragment were found and seized (l. 9-10).
-Act of the inspection of the animal from 05.06.2009g. (ld 12).
-protocol of a notch of a knife, tail fragment at Sh.I.I. (ld 20-21).
-protocol inspection of a knife, a fragment of the tail (ld 22).
-a decision on the recognition and admission to the criminal case of material evidence - a knife, a fragment of the tail (ld 23).
According to the conclusion of the forensic psychiatric commission of experts N.A.V. discovers signs of mental disorder in the form of personality disorder in an unstable manner against the background of borderline intellectual failure. During the period of time related to the act in which he was suspected, the expert did not show signs of any temporary mental disorder. At the same time, the revealed mental disorder limited the ability to refrain from violating the law and did not allow the expert to fully realize and direct the actual nature and social danger of his actions. According to his mental state, under expert N. can be aware of the factual nature and social danger of his actions and direct them. The mental disorder that N. suffers in accordance with Article 22, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not prevent him from being sentenced. Subject in accordance with Article 22 Part 2, Article 97 h. 1 p. “C” and Art. 99 h. 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation need outpatient compulsory observation and treatment by a psychiatrist, combined with the execution of the sentence. The expert has no contraindications for compulsory medical measures (ld 63-64).
The court finds the defense’s arguments unreasonable that N.’s actions contain a corpus delicti of the offenses under Part 1 of Art. 245 and h. 1 Article 150 of the Criminal Code, since, as established at the hearing, N. involved E. in committing a crime with violence and with the threat of violence. Guilty of the accused N. of committing crimes under Part 1 of Art. 245 and h. 3 Article 150 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was fully proved during the trial, namely the testimony of the victim M., witness E. about the circumstances of the crime, the testimonies of the witnesses, the protocol of the inspection of the scene, the act of inspecting the animal, the testimony of the defendant N. and other case materials.
Having assessed the totality of the investigated evidence, the court considers guilty N.A.V. established and qualifies its actions:
- for hours. 1 Article. 245 of the Criminal Code, as a cruel treatment of animals, resulting in their mutilation, if this act was committed using sadistic methods, in the presence of a minor.
- under Part 3 of Art. 150 of the Criminal Code, as involving a minor in the commission of a crime by threats or otherwise, committed by a person who has reached the age of eighteen years old, committed with the use of violence and with the threat of its use.
Since the case file is not contained and the court session did not establish circumstances that would cast doubt on the mental health of the defendant, the court recognizes N.A. B. sane in respect of the acts incriminated to him and subject to criminal liability for the deed.
In determining the type and amount of punishment, the court takes into account the nature and degree of public danger committed by the defendant N.A.V. serious crime and crimes of minor gravity, as well as data on the identity of the perpetrator, from which it follows that the defendant N.A. previously convicted, was not brought to administrative responsibility, does not work, at the place of residence the defendant is characterized mediocre.
In accordance with Art. 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, circumstances mitigating the punishment of the defendant N.A. there is none.
In accordance with Art. 63 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation circumstances aggravating the punishment of the defendant N.A. there is none.
In addition, the court finds the circumstance mitigating the punishment of defendant N. his young age and the presence of a mental disorder in the defendant.
In accordance with Art. 22, part 1, article 97, part 2, article 99 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation outpatient compulsory observation and treatment by a psychiatrist, combined with the execution of the punishment, should be prescribed.
In determining the type and amount of punishment, the court also takes into account the position of the victim M.MA. 245 of the Criminal Code.
Determining the type and measure of punishment N. the court takes into account the need to match the nature and degree of public danger of the crime committed, the circumstances of its commission, personality, and, guided by the principle of justice and judicial conviction, considers it necessary to punish him for committing a crime under h 1 tbsp. 245 of the Criminal Code in the form of a fine, and for committing a crime under Part 3 of Art. 150 of the Criminal Code in the form of imprisonment.
By virtue of Art. 81 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court considers determining the fate of the material evidence as follows: hand over the knife to the victim M.MA., destroy the tail fragment.
No civil action was filed in the case.
Based on the above, guided by art. 316 Code of Criminal Procedure, court
SENTENED:
N.A.V. found guilty of committing crimes under Part 1 of Art. 245; h. 3 tbsp. 150 of the Criminal Code and sentenced:
- for hours. 1 Article. 245 of the Criminal Code in the form of a fine in the amount of 20,000 (twenty thousand) rubles.
- under Part 3 of Art. 150 of the Criminal Code in the form of imprisonment for a term of 3 (three) years.
Based on h. 3 Article. 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for the aggregate of crimes by complete addition of the sentence finally to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of 3 (three) years and a fine of 20,000 (twenty thousand) rubles.
Based on h. 5 Article. 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the aggregate of crimes by partial addition of the sentence of the present sentence and the punishment of the court appointed by the verdict of the Severo-Yeniseysk District Court of 15.06.2009. and the cassation ruling of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court of September 17, 2009, to finally appoint N.A.V. a sentence of 3 (three) years 6 (six) months of imprisonment and a fine of 20,000 (twenty thousand) rubles, with the sentence being served in a penal colony of general regime.
The term of serving the sentence calculate from 9 o'clock on October 30, 2009.
Set off on time departed N.A.V. the time of his detention from 5 p.m. June 15, 2009 to 9 a.m. on October 30, 2009 by a sentence of the Severo-Yeniseysk District Court of June 15, 2009.
Preventive measure N.A.V. change from a written undertaking not to leave to custody, having taken into custody in the courtroom, with the detention in pre-trial detention center-1 mountains. Krasnoyarsk and pre-trial detention center-2 of Yeniseysk.
Based on Art. 22, part 1, article 97, part 2, article 99 of the Criminal Code to appoint N.A.A. compulsory medical measures: outpatient compulsory observation and treatment by a psychiatrist, combined with the execution of the sentence.
Material evidence: a knife should be handed over to the victim M.MA., a fragment of the tail should be destroyed.
The verdict can be appealed in cassation to the judicial board for criminal cases of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court within 10 days from the date of its announcement, and to convicts N. in custody, within the same period from the date of delivery of a copy of the sentence to him with filing a complaint through North- Yenisei District Court.
In the case of a cassation appeal, the convicted person has the right to petition for his participation in the consideration of the criminal case by the court of cassation.

Presiding - O.YU. Kovalev
The original of the document is in file No. 1-39 / 09g.

The verdict entered into force according to the cassation ruling of the judicial board for criminal cases of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on December 17, 2009, as amended:
It will soften the punishment appointed by N. under Art. 245 h. 1 of the Criminal Code, reducing the size of the fine to 5,000 rubles;
The punishment prescribed by Art. 150 h. 3 of the Criminal Code to reduce to 2 years in prison;
According to the totality of crimes under the rules of Art. 69 h.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation will appoint N. 2 years of imprisonment and a fine of 5,000 rubles,
According to the aggregate of crimes according to the rules p. 69 h. 5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to appoint 2 years 6 months of imprisonment with serving in a penal colony of general regime and a fine in the amount of 5000 rubles.
The rest of the sentence upheld, and the cassation appeal of A.A. without satisfaction.
The cassation appeal of the public prosecutor satisfy.

Judge of the North Yenisei District Court O.Yew. Kovalev
Source: https://drug.2x2forum.ru/t237-topic

 

[Адвокат]

RESOLUTION
Novosibirsk January 13, 2010

Zaeltsovsky Federal District Court of General Jurisdiction composed of:
Presiding judge Danilina E.The.,
With the participation of the public prosecutor R. T. N.,
Defendant K. D.A.,
Defender D.A.K., who submitted certificate No. xxx and warrant No. xxx,
Victim K.O.I.,
When the secretary S.M.A.,
Having examined in open court the criminal proceedings against
K. D.A., xx.xx.xxxx year of birth, native of p. D., D. district, Novosibirsk region, citizen of the Russian Federation, higher education, single, working at CJSC GSP No. x as an assistant to a dentist registered in Novosibirsk on ul. 1, d.xxx, sq.xxxx, living without registration in the city of Novosibirsk on the street E., D.xx, sq. Xxx, previously not convicted,
Accused of committing crimes under Art. Article 211, part 1, paragraph “a”, 119 part 1, 245 part 1 of the Criminal Code
installed:
K. DA grossly violated public order, expressing a clear disrespect for society, using weapons; threatened with murder if there was reason to fear the realization of this threat; cruelly treated the animal, which entailed his mutilation, out of hooligan motives, in the presence of minors. The crimes were committed in the Zaeltsovsky district of the city of Novosibirsk under the following circumstances.
EPISODE №1.
09/19/2009 at about 19 hours 30 minutes K. YES was in the courtyard of d. 39 on the street. E., at a distance of about 15 meters from the playground where the children played. At this time, K. DA, using a deliberately insignificant reason, started a quarrel with a pensioner K. OI, during which K. DA had a criminal intent to commit hooliganism.
Realizing his criminal intentions, acting out of hooligan motives, grossly violating public order, expressing obvious disrespect for society and social moral standards, using a deliberately insignificant reason, K. DA began to express himself to K. OI with rude obscene language, grabbing the leash hanging from the last one on his neck, he addressed K. OI with the threat of murder, as well as the threat of using weapons in her address and in the address of the poodle breed dog belonging to her.
Continuing to pursue his criminal intent, K. DA took a 4.5 mm caliber A-101 model pistol No. xxx located in his car and located in his public place in the courtyard of a residential building in the immediate vicinity of the playground, where children played, and also in the presence of S. MS, M. VV intentionally, exerting a psychological effect on K. OI, who perceived this gun as a weapon, expressed his readiness to use it for violence, said that he would shoot her dog, and then produced at least two aimed shots from the specified pneumatic gun belonging to the victim in the dog, caused the dog a wound in the right thoracic limb. Then, K. DA sent a pistol barrel to the face of K. OI, and having a psychological effect on the latter, he threatened her with murder, saying that he would kill her.
Z. EU and E. NV, who were in the courtyard of the house, tried to stop the criminal actions of K. DA, but the latter, demonstrating a dismissive attitude towards others, expressed his gross swearing at them, after which he went into the house with his friends, stopping his hooligan actions, which lasted about 15 minutes.
Frightened by the actions of K. Yes, K. OI called the police.
EPISODE No. 2.
09/19/2009 at about 19 hours 30 minutes K. YES was at d. 39 on the street. E., where during the commission of hooligan actions he had a criminal intent, aimed at the threat of murder against K. OI.
Realizing his criminal intentions, acting deliberately, purposefully, aware of the social danger and unlawfulness of the act he committed, K. DA grabbed the leash that hung on K. OI's neck, while expressing the threat of murder to the latter, saying that he would hang her on this leash. The OI perceived the threat of murder K. OI perceived it as real and real, since she had every reason to be afraid of this threat, given the aggressive behavior of K. DA.
In continuation of his criminal actions, K. DA, holding in his hand the pneumatic pistol of model A-101 of caliber 4.5 mm No. xxx, which he had previously taken from the car, fired at least two aimed shots at the dog belonging to K. OI, one of which caused the dog a wound in the right thoracic limb. After that, K. DA, acting intentionally and purposefully, aware of the social danger and unlawfulness of the act committed by him, sent the gun barrel to the face of K. OI, and said that he would kill her. OI perceived the threat posed to her as a real and real one, since she had every reason to be afraid of this threat, since K. DA was aggressive, had shot at least two shots at her dog earlier, as a result of which the latter received mutilation.
EPISODE No. 3.
09/19/2009 at about 19 hours 30 minutes K. YES was in the courtyard of d. 39 on the street. E., at a distance of about 15 meters from the playground where young children played, when in the course of committing hooligan actions, K. DA had a criminal intent aimed at cruelty to animals, realizing which, acting intentionally and purposefully, aware of the social danger and unlawfulness of the act committed by him, realizing that he is carrying out his criminal actions in the presence of young children on the playground, K. DA, holding in his hand a 4.5 mm caliber model A-101 pistol No. xxx, directed him towards the dog a poodle breed named C., owned by K. OI, and, out of hooligan motives, fired at least two aimed shots, as a result of one of which a poodle dog named S. received a mutilation in the form of lameness on the right thoracic limb, swelling of soft tissues in the region of the right shoulder, subcutaneous hematoma, wound openings of a rounded shape with a diameter of 5 mm.
Defendant K. DA at the hearing on episodes No. 1-3 pleaded guilty fully, repented of his deed, refused to testify, using the right granted by Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, confirmed the testimony of the victim and witnesses.
The court, after hearing the accused K. DA, the victim K. OI, checking the testimonies of witnesses E. HB, Z. EC, L. KV, P. RE, K. PE, the case file, finds the guilt of K. DA established and proved.
So, from the testimony of the victim K. OI at the hearing and during the preliminary investigation, verified by the court in accordance with Article 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, it was established that on September 19, 2009, around 19.30, she walked with her poodle dog for d.xxx on the street E .. The dog ran around her without a leash and a muzzle. They passed house No. xxxx, where two guys and a girl stood. When they came to the beginning of d.xxx on the street. E., she heard one of the guys shout to her: “Hey, hear, why are you driving your dog without a muzzle?” She answered the guy that she was suitable for him as a grandmother, and asked why he was talking to her like that. A guy came up to her and asked if she had seen on TV yesterday how a dog had bitten a woman. She replied that they (she and her dog) did not touch him. Then this guy - the defendant K. DA - came closer to her, kicked her dog, who was standing nearby, why the dog ran into the yards of the houses. Then K. DA grabbed her by the leash hanging on her neck and asked if she knew where the leash should hang, said that she would now hang her on this leash and shoot her dog. She was frightened of his words and actions, but, without showing her fright, she replied that if he had anything, let him shoot. After that, K. DA went around the corner d.xxx on the street. E .. She noticed that her dog is not nearby. At this time, she heard a shot and immediately ran around the corner of the house, where she saw that K. was standing near the car and holding a gun. At this time, a second shot was fired. K. was aiming at her dog, but did not hit, after which he again shot at the dog and wounded her in the right paw. The dog, limping on the forelimb, ran to her, and K. again, aiming at the dog, shot a pistol, but did not hit the dog, a bullet flew a few centimeters from her legs. She ran to K., who, extending his hand, directed the pistol barrel in her face and said that he would kill her now, her address was obscene. She was very scared for her life and health, was afraid that K. would shoot and take her life. She saw that K. had a bag hanging on her shoulder and, with the aim of moving the gun away from her face, pulled the bag with all her strength, as a result of which K. bent down and pulled the gun away from her face, the bag remained with him. She pulled K. by the bag so that if he fired, then not in her head, but in her legs. K. screamed for her bag. After that, a guy and a girl with whom K. had previously run up to her and attacked her to take her bag, which she grabbed so that K. would not hide, and if she disappeared, the bag would remain she’s like evidence. The guy grabbed her shoulders from behind and shouted that he would break her face and pull out her hair, and the girl hung on her right hand and insulted her with foul language. At this time, her leg turned up and she, feeling pain in her leg and right elbow, let go of her bag. A guy and a girl, taking her bag from her, disappeared in the entrance of d. 39 on the street. E., and K. continued to stand opposite her and hold the gun. Where the gun was aimed at this time, she does not remember, because she was in a state of shock. At this time, people ran up, began to reassure K., and she was asked to call the police. Hearing about this, K. said that if she calls the police, she can’t live here. After that, she called the police. The next day, she went to the veterinary clinic, since the dog could not step on her paw, and she went to the medical institution, as her leg was very sore. These injuries appeared as a result of a fight with a guy and a girl, perhaps she tripped on their legs. She was very afraid for her life.
From the testimony of witness E. N.V. at the preliminary investigation, verified by the court in accordance with Article 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was established that on September 19, 2009 it was about 20-21 hours, she did not remember the exact time, she was in the courtyard of d.xxx on ul. E., next to the playground where young children walked. She heard popping and, turning, saw that at the entrance of d.xxx on the street. E., about 10-15 meters from her, a young man is standing and holding an object resembling a pistol that points at a woman and speaks roughly to her. At this time, small children started screaming that the dog was bleeding. She, seeing that the woman was standing and could not say anything to the guy, decided to intervene, began to approach the guy, but he went to the car and put a gun in him. She began to ask the guy why he was talking to a woman like that, to which he answered obscenely. After that, other women came and began to reassure the guy, to which he said that he would call the police now and they would be put in prison. They gave the woman a phone, she called the police officers who arrived at the scene. The guy began to tell that the woman’s dog attacked him, he started shooting at him, the first time he didn’t hit him, he started firing at her again. She and the women wondered how such a small poodle dog could bite him. When a guy shot a dog, he wounded her in the paw, as the dog could not step on it. The owner of the dog was very scared by the actions of the guy, she could not even say anything. The guy behaved very rudely with the woman, spoke out against her with rude obscene language, insulted her in every possible way, as well as everyone around him (l. 23-25).
From the testimony of witness Z. EU during the preliminary investigation, verified by the court in accordance with Article 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, it was established that on September 19, 2009, at about 20 hours and 30 minutes, she was in the courtyard of 39, on the street. E., next to the playground where young children were. Her four-year-old daughter wanted to drink, in connection with which she went to the store for juice, and the daughter stayed with her friend. Leaving the store and heading to her daughter, she saw that there was nobody on the bench near the house, and she heard screams. Going closer, she saw a young man grabbing a woman by the leash that hung on her neck, expressed herself in her address with gross obscene language. The woman stood silently and could not answer anything, apparently, was in a state of shock. At this time, her daughter told her that this guy shot a dog and the dog has blood. The women who were nearby began to reassure the guy, she also approached him and said that he should calm down that that woman was suitable for him in his mother, to which the guy told her to leave, that he would call the police now and they were all here "Razrulit". She offered the woman to call the police, as they shot at her dog, she was insulted. A woman called police officers from her phone (l. 35-36).
From the similar testimonies of witnesses L. KV and P. RG during the preliminary investigation, verified by the court in accordance with Article 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, it was established that on September 19, 2009 they served on AP-24. At 20 hours 35 minutes from the operator received an application stating that on the street. E., xxx, shot. Arriving at the above address, a woman named K. OI explained that a young man had shot her dog with a pistol. In addition to K. OI, there were still women in the courtyard who explained that this guy’s car was near the house. Seeing the inscription on the sale and the phone number on the car’s windshield, L. KV called this number and contacted a guy who left the house and admitted that he really shot the dog, which frightened his girlfriend. Later, the guy and the woman were taken to the police department in the Zaeltsovsky district, where a gun was seized from the guy (l.
From the testimony of witness K. PE during the preliminary investigation, verified by the court in accordance with Article 81 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, it was established that on September 19, 2009, at about 21 hours 10 minutes, he was invited by the police to the Zaeltsovsky District Department of Internal Affairs as a witness, his rights and obligations were explained to him witnesses prescribed by law. Further, in his presence and in the presence of another witness, a pneumatic pistol of model A-101 No. xxx was seized from a citizen who identified himself as KD A. After the seizure of the pistol, he and the second witness understood the protocol. In his opinion, K. was sober (p. 96-99).
The guilt of the defendant K. DA, in addition, is confirmed by written evidence examined at the hearing:
- the protocol for the adoption of an oral statement of a crime, where K. OI reports on the crime committed in relation to her and explains the circumstances of its commission (l. d.6);
- the protocol of personal search of September 19, 2009, according to which a pneumatic gun A-101 No. 0753279 (f. 11) was found and seized from K. DA in the presence of witnesses;
- an extract from the journal of registration of sick animals of the veterinary clinic “Z.”, according to which, when examining a poodle dog named “C.” owned by K. OI on 20.09.2009, a limp on the right thoracic limb was found, soft swelling in the area of the right shoulder tissues, subcutaneous hematoma, wound hole of rounded shape with a diameter of 5 mm, the diagnosis was made - a bullet wound of soft tissues, according to the owner of the injury was received in the evening of September 19, 2009 (l. 13);
- a copy of the veterinary passport, according to which the dog is a poodle breed nicknamed "C." belongs to K. OI (l. d.14-15);
- The conclusion of the ballistic examination, according to which the subject submitted for the study is a pneumatic gun and a firearm is not. The A-101 model 4.5 mm caliber pistol No. xxx of domestic production in the presented form (the presence of compressed gas in the cylinder) is suitable for firing (l. D.22).
Analyzing the investigated evidence, the court finds it admissible and reliable, since it was obtained in accordance with the requirements of the criminal procedure law, investigative actions were carried out with the participation of witnesses, outsiders who were not interested in the outcome of the case; the victim and the witnesses were not previously familiar with the defendant, they have no personal hostile relations, therefore they have no reason to stipulate K. YES. The testimonies of the indicated persons were confirmed by the defendants at the hearing.
In such circumstances, the actions of K. DA are qualified by the court under episode No. 1 under paragraph A, part 1 of article 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as hooliganism, that is, a gross violation of public order, expressing a clear disrespect for society committed with the use of weapons, according to episode No. 2 of part 1 of article 191 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as a threat of murder, if there is reason to fear the realization of this threat, according to episode No. 3 of part 1 of article 245 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as cruelty to animals that entailed their mutilation committed from hooligan motives in the presence of minors.
At the hearing, the lawyer D. AK filed a motion to terminate the proceedings in connection with the reconciliation of the victim K. OI with the defendant K. DA, since the crimes committed by the defendant belong to the category of light and medium gravity, K. DA admitted guilt, repented of their deed, made amends for the harm.
The victim K. OI supported the petition of the lawyer Dudin AK, asked to stop the proceedings on reconciliation with the defendant, of which she submitted a written statement to the court.
The defendant did not object to the termination of the proceedings.
The public prosecutor R. TN did not object to the termination of the proceedings in connection with the reconciliation of the parties.
The court considers that the request to terminate the proceedings for the reconciliation of the victim K. OI with the defendant K. DA must be satisfied in accordance with Article 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, since K. DA fully pleaded guilty to the crimes committed, repented of the deed, first committed crimes small and medium severity, works, the place of work and residence is characterized positively, reconciled with the victim and made amends for the harm. The consequences of the termination of the proceedings to the parties are explained.
The claims filed at the hearing the victim asked to leave without consideration.
Based on the foregoing and guided by Article.25, 256 Code of Criminal Procedure, court
RESOLVED:
Terminate the criminal case on charges of K. D. A. of committing crimes under Art. Article 211, part 1, paragraph “A”, 119 part 1, 245 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in connection with the reconciliation of K. DA with the victim K. OI.
Material evidence in the case - a pneumatic pistol of model A-101 of caliber 4.5 mm No. xxx stored in the storage room of the Department of Internal Affairs in the Zaeltsovsky District of Novosibirsk — destroy.
The statement of claim for recovery from K. DA 500 000 rubles in respect of non-pecuniary damage leave without consideration.
The judgment may be appealed to the Novosibirsk Regional Court within 10 days from the date of adoption.

JUDGE E.V. DANILINA
The decision entered into force on January 24, 2010.
Source: https://drug.2x2forum.ru/t237-topic

 

[Адвокат]

FRASE
En nombre de la Federación de Rusia
Kurgan 08 de marzo de 2010

Parcela de la corte de magistrados № 38 g. Kurgan Kurgan región Fomin M.The.
con la participación del fiscal general Brigida K.A.,
demandado N *,
abogado del abogado Popova O.V.,
víctima M *,
cuando la secretaria Osipova S.A.
examinado en audiencia pública en un proceso judicial especial materiales de casos penales sobre
N *, *** año de nacimiento, nativo de las montañas. Kurgan Kurgan region, ciudadano de la Federación de Rusia, vive en: Kurgan, st. ***, d. * apt. *, con educación secundaria especializada, no obligada, no casada, no trabaja, no condenada,
acusado de cometer un delito, de conformidad con el artículo de la Parte 1. 245 del Código Penal,
instalado:
25 de noviembre de 2009 alrededor de las 11 a.m. 30 minutos. N *, al ver en la entrada de su casa No. *** en la calle *** en la ciudad de Kurgan, un gatito negro maullando perteneciente a la víctima M *, lo arrojó a la calle desde la entrada, tomando su mano en su abrigo. Después de unos minutos, N *, al escuchar nuevamente al gatito maullar, salir a la plataforma desde su departamento y encontrar al gatito antes mencionado en su área, nuevamente lo arrojó a la calle. Después de lo cual, alrededor de 12 horas. 00 minutos ella, habiendo escuchado nuevamente al gatito maullar en la entrada, lo que la enfureció mucho, salió de su departamento hacia la entrada, donde en el sitio del quinto piso vio nuevamente al gatito antes mencionado, lo tomó de la lana con la mano y con el objetivo de causar daño al animal, salió de la entrada de la casa a la calle, fui a los contenedores de basura, de pie cerca del número de casa * * en la calle *** en la ciudad de Kurgan, donde, intencionalmente, en presencia de ciudadanos en la calle - P * y S *, golpeó al gatito tres veces con la cabeza en el bote de basura, ¿por qué? la sangre fluía de la cabeza del animal. Después de eso, N * arrojó al gatito a un contenedor de basura. Según los expertos del Servicio Veterinario Kurgan de *** en el gatito, se revelaron las siguientes lesiones: asimetría de la parte facial de la cabeza (hematoma), coágulos de sangre en las fosas nasales, protrusión del globo ocular derecho, hematomas en la parte frontal y occipital de la cabeza, desplazamiento de las vértebras de la región cervical columna vertebral, aspiración de los pulmones con sangre. Según esta conclusión, la muerte del animal ocurrió como resultado de la obtención de hierbas mecánicas incompatibles con la vida.
Al leer los materiales de la causa penal y la acusación N * en presencia de un abogado del abogado Popova O.V. presentó una moción de sentencia sin juicio en relación con el consentimiento de la fiscalía.
En la audiencia, el acusado admitió totalmente la culpa del delito. De acuerdo con la acusación en su totalidad, N * declaró que se arrepintió de su hecho, apoyó la solicitud de consideración del caso penal en un procedimiento judicial especial y la decisión del veredicto sin juicio, indicó que la solicitud fue hecha por ella voluntariamente, después de consultar con un abogado, en su presencia. Es consciente de todas las consecuencias de la sentencia sin juicio.
El abogado defensor en la audiencia apoyó la solicitud del acusado.
La víctima en la audiencia también estuvo de acuerdo con la moción del acusado de considerar el caso penal de una manera especial.
El fiscal consideró que la moción del acusado era fundada y expresó su consentimiento para la consideración de la causa penal en un procedimiento judicial especial.
El tribunal determinó que el cargo del acusado era claro y ella estuvo completamente de acuerdo con él. Ella presentó una moción para sentenciar sin juicio voluntariamente y luego de consultar con un abogado. Demandado aclaró requisitos Artículo. 317 Código de Procedimiento Penal y ella es plenamente consciente de las consecuencias de la sentencia sin juicio. El representante de la fiscalía estatal, el abogado de la defensa, la víctima no se oponen a la petición del acusado y lo apoyan.
El tribunal determina que los cargos, que el acusado acordó, confirmaron y confirmaron con la evidencia recopilada en el caso penal, califican las acciones de N * en virtud de la parte 1 del art. 245 del Código Penal como trato cruel a los animales, que resulta en su muerte, cometido con el uso de métodos sádicos. Indicación del cargo en la calificación de las acciones del acusado en virtud de la Parte 1 del art. 245 del Código Penal de la Federación de Rusia sobre la consecuencia de la crueldad hacia los animales en forma de mutilación, se excluirá de la acusación N *, como calificación excesiva.
Al imponer una sentencia, el tribunal tendrá en cuenta la naturaleza y el grado de peligro público del delito cometido, la identidad del autor y las circunstancias que mitigan el castigo del acusado.
Circunstancias que mitigan el castigo del acusado, el juez de paz considera su reconocimiento de su culpa, sincero arrepentimiento por el hecho, la vejez.
Circunstancias que agravan al acusado de conformidad con el artículo. 63 del Código Penal, el tribunal no se ha establecido.
N * tiene un lugar de residencia permanente, según el cual se caracteriza satisfactoriamente. La caracterización del acusado disponible en el caso, emitida por el UUM OM OM No. * del Departamento de Asuntos Internos de Kurgan, que establece que N * se caracteriza negativamente por los vecinos, el tribunal considera que es parcial, ya que no contiene motivos específicos para las conclusiones expuestas en él. Los datos vecinos no se indican en esta característica. La misma característica indica que N * no se ve en el uso de bebidas alcohólicas, es un pensionista, no ha sido sometido previamente a responsabilidad penal u otra responsabilidad. Por lo tanto, el tribunal considera que N * se caracteriza satisfactoriamente.
Dada la totalidad de las circunstancias atenuantes y la ausencia de circunstancias agravantes, la naturaleza y el grado de peligro público del delito, la identidad del autor, el tribunal considera que N * debe ser condenado a una multa en los ingresos estatales por un monto cercano al mínimo. Al determinar el monto de la multa, el tribunal tiene en cuenta la situación financiera del acusado, que es un pensionista de vejez y la única fuente de ingresos es una pensión de vejez.
Los motivos previstos por el artículo 64 del Código Penal, el tribunal no ve el caso.
En virtud de h.10 Artículo. 316 del Código de Procedimiento Penal de la Federación de Rusia, los costos procesales de pagar a un abogado con el fin de recuperar al acusado no están sujetos.
Basado en lo anterior, guiado por el art. Arte. 302-304, 307-310, 314-317 Código de Procedimiento Penal,
ENVIADO
Reconocer a N * culpable de un delito en virtud de la Parte 1 del art. 245 del Código Penal y condenado a una multa en los ingresos estatales por un monto de 3.000 (tres mil) rublos.
La medida preventiva N * en la forma de un reconocimiento de no irse y el comportamiento apropiado permanecerán sin cambios hasta que la sentencia entre en vigencia.
El veredicto puede ser apelado ante el tribunal de la ciudad de Kurgan a través de un magistrado dentro de los diez días a partir de la fecha de la declaración, y condenado, al mismo tiempo desde la fecha de entrega de una copia del veredicto.
El veredicto, que se decidió en una orden especial sin juicio, no puede apelarse en apelación sobre la base del párrafo 1 del art. 379 del Código de Procedimiento Penal: la discrepancia entre los resultados del tribunal establecidos en el veredicto y las circunstancias reales del caso penal establecido por el tribunal de primera instancia.

Juez de paz: Fomin M.V.
Secretario: Osipova S.A.
Fuente: https://drug.2x2forum.ru/t237-topic

 

[Адвокат]

FRASE
En nombre de la Federación de Rusia
Vladivostok 17 de marzo de 2010

Tribunal de Distrito de Frunze de Vladivostok, presidido por el juez P. Vetokhin,
cuando el secretario Gavrish Yu.S.
con la participación del fiscal - fiscal adjunto del distrito de Frunze Sablina N.V.,
El defensor Kudelinskaya M.S., que presentó el certificado N ° 441 y la orden N ° 377, después de haber examinado en audiencia pública el caso penal contra A.
acusado de cometer crímenes bajo el párrafo n. "B, c" parte 2 del artículo 158, parte 1 del artículo 245 del Código Penal,
instalado:
R. El 28 de enero de 2010, de 13 horas 10 minutos a 14 horas, ingresó ilegalmente al área cercada del patio del bloque 3 de la casa 16 en la calle Shigino, la isla Russky, Vladivostok, y se aseguró de que nadie estuviera detrás de sus acciones. observando, intencionalmente, por motivos mercenarios, secuestró secretamente a un perro de raza mixta "Caucásico con un Rottweiler" en un collar que no tenía valor para K., causando a la víctima un daño material significativo por un total de 15,000 rublos, luego de lo cual desapareció de la escena del crimen.
Él, el 28 de enero de 2010, aproximadamente a las 2 de la tarde, estaba en el bloque 6 de la casa 16 en la calle Shigino, isla Russky, Vladivostok, tratando cruelmente a un perro previamente secuestrado, causándole un sufrimiento especial, intencionalmente, queriendo causar su muerte, actuando Por motivos mercenarios, con el fin de seguir comiéndolo, infligió varios golpes en la cabeza con el hacha con el objetivo de matarlo. Con una herida cortada en la cabeza, atormentado y sufriendo abusos, el perro aulló y se quejó. A., dándose cuenta de que sus acciones atormentan a la perra y, aún con ganas de causarle la muerte, la arrojó al sótano del bloque 6 d.16 de Shigino St. o Russky en Vladivostok, donde murió, sangrando, sangrando.
El acusado A. está totalmente de acuerdo con el cargo y presentó una moción para sentenciar sin juicio en el caso penal. Él solicitó la petición voluntariamente, después de consultar con el abogado defensor, entendió las consecuencias de la sentencia sin juicio.
El fiscal y el abogado de la defensa no se opusieron a la solicitud de juicio de manera especial.
El tribunal considera que es posible juzgar sin un juicio de manera general. El acusado es consciente de la naturaleza y las consecuencias de la solicitud presentada por él. La petición de los acusados se declara voluntariamente, previa consulta con un abogado.
La acusación, con la que el acusado estuvo de acuerdo, está justificada y está confirmada por todos los materiales del caso.
Por lo tanto, la culpabilidad del acusado ha sido probada, y sus acciones están debidamente calificadas por las autoridades de investigación preliminar:
por artículo "B, c" parte 2 del artículo 158 del Código Penal de la Federación Rusa - como robo, es decir, robo secreto de la propiedad de otro, cometido con entrada ilegal en otro almacén, causando daños significativos a un ciudadano,
de acuerdo con la parte 1 del artículo 245 del Código Penal de la Federación de Rusia, como trato cruel a los animales, que condujo a su muerte, si este acto se cometió por motivos mercenarios.
Al imponer una sentencia, el tribunal tiene en cuenta las circunstancias del caso, la gravedad pequeña y mediana de los delitos cometidos por A., su personalidad, características sociales negativas y positivas desde el lugar del curso de adaptación, daños no reparados, ausencia de circunstancias que mitiguen y agraven el castigo, en relación con lo cual, viene a la conclusión de que la corrección del acusado es posible sin aislamiento de la sociedad y considera necesario aplicar las disposiciones del artículo 73 del Código Penal de la Federación de Rusia con la imposición de deberes adicionales.
De acuerdo con lo anterior y guiado por el artículo 316 Código de Procedimiento Penal,
ENVIADO
Reconocer a A. culpable de crímenes bajo los párrafos. "B, c" parte 2 del artículo 158, parte 1 del artículo 245 del Código Penal de la Federación de Rusia, que lo condenó a:
por artículo "B, c" parte 2 del artículo 158 del Código Penal de la Federación de Rusia en forma de prisión por un período de dos años sin restricción de libertad,
según la parte 1 del artículo 245 del Código Penal en forma de trabajo correccional por un período de seis meses con una deducción del 10% de todos los tipos de ingresos.
De conformidad con la parte 2 del artículo 69 del Código Penal de la Federación de Rusia, al absorber un castigo menos severo por uno más severo, finalmente determinar dos años de prisión sin restricción de libertad a la salida.
Sobre la base del artículo 73 del Código Penal de la Federación de Rusia, el castigo se considerará condicional con un período de prueba de dos años.
Obligar a A. a registrarse en la inspección penal-ejecutiva en el lugar de residencia, una vez al mes el día establecido por la inspección, a registrarse, a no cambiar el lugar de residencia sin notificar la inspección.
Medida preventiva A. en forma de reconocimiento de no salir y comportamiento apropiado para cancelar al entrar en vigencia la sentencia. El plazo de castigo se calculará desde el momento en que se pronuncia la sentencia.
Recoge de A. a favor de K. 15,000 rublos.
Evidencia material: el cadáver del perro, el collar ubicado en la víctima K., - devolver K .; un paquete de cabello, un fragmento de una toalla, un hacha, ubicado en la cámara de almacenamiento de evidencia material de OM No. 4 en el Departamento de Asuntos Internos en la ciudad de Vladivostok, - para destruir.
El veredicto puede ser apelado ante el Tribunal Regional de Primorsky a través del Tribunal de Distrito de Frunze dentro de los 10 días a partir de la fecha de su anuncio. En caso de una apelación de casación, la persona condenada tiene derecho a solicitar su participación en la consideración del caso penal por el tribunal de casación.

Presidiendo P.S. Vetokhin
Fuente: https://drug.2x2forum.ru/t237-topic

 

[Адвокат]

SENTENCE
In the name of the Russian Federation
Bogoroditsk April 9, 2010

Bogoroditsky District Court of the Tula Region of:
presiding Davydova H.The., under Secretary Dorokhovoy L.F.,
with the participation of the public prosecutor assistant Bogoroditsky interdistrict prosecutor Kutrin V.V.,
defendant Zh E.The.,
defender K N.I., who presented the certificate № from and warrant № from the year,
examined in open court in the courtroom a criminal case against the defendant J.E., accused of committing crimes under subsection. “a”, part 3 of Art. 158, part 1, article 245 of the Criminal Code,
installed:
Zh.V. committed illegal entry into a home, committed against the will of a person living in it under the following circumstances.
January 1, 2010, in the period from 9 hours 00 minutes to 15 hours 00 minutes, Zh.V. with the aim of illegally entering the house, he came to the apartment of Kh.TV., located at the address: Tula region, Bogoroditsky district, bldg., where, carrying out his criminal intent, he broke a break with a padlock on a wooden stick found near the house with a padlock the door of the apartment of HT.V., after which he illegally entered inside the dwelling against the will of H.T.V. living in it.
In addition, he, ZHEV, committed cruel treatment of the animal, resulting in his death, committed from hooligan motives, using sadistic methods, under the following circumstances:
January 1, 2010, in the period from 9 hours 00 minutes to 15 hours 00 minutes, Zh.V. after illegally entering apartment No. HT.V., located at the address: Tula region, Bogoroditsky district, the house left the apartment and entered the courtyard of the house, where he saw a dog belonging to HT.V .. U Zh E.V. there was an intent for cruelty to animals. Realizing his criminal intent, J.E.V. He went to the dog, who was in the booth near the indicated house, untied the dog and led her into the apartment of HT.V. Then ZH.V., intentionally, without reason, from hooligan motives, realizing that his actions are cruel to the above animal and will lead to his death, using sadistic, painful methods for the animal, tied the dog’s neck with a rope and hung it on the rope on the door, squeezing the dog's throat, causing her pain and physical suffering. After some time, having discovered that the dog is alive, Zh.E. V., continuing his criminal actions, neglecting the generally accepted moral standards found in the house of HT.V. he cut the dog’s throat with a knife, which led to her death. Then Zh.V. he chopped the dog’s body into three parts with an ax and, expressing obvious disrespect for society, scattered the dog’s parts in the common yard of the house No. of the farmhouse of the Bogoroditsky district of the Tula region.
At the hearing the defendant Zh.E..The. partly pleaded guilty to the charge and explained that in the summer of 2009 he had exchanged with his acquaintance G.P. with things that he gave him his tape recorder, and he, F, brought him his Youth TV and a room antenna. They did not stipulate the terms of exchange with him. Recently, G.'s tape recorder did not work, he did not use it. On January 1, 2010, at about 10 o’clock, he decided to go to G. and his roommate H., to pick up his TV and antenna in the apartment No. of house No. Bogoroditsky district of the Tula region. He came to their house, saw that there was a padlock on the door. He decided to enter the house of H.T.V .. Near the door he found a birch stick and it tore this lock from the door of the house. He opened the door and entered a house in which there was nobody. It was cold in the house, he left the house and broke off several boards from the fence, with these boards he melted the stove in the house. Then he opened the closet and threw out all his things and linen from the floor. He left part of the laundry in the oven and burned them so that the oven burned well. He threw his underwear in heaps, not taking it apart. Then he found a black men's jacket in the house and put it on himself. Then he took a television with an antenna from the house, and he was planning to return G. with a tape recorder later. He burned things to make the stove burn better. Near the house in the booth was a red-haired dog. He, J., knew that G. this dog has nothing to feed. He decided to kill this dog, no matter what it was tormented. Taking the dog by the rope, he led her into the house. First, he hung the dog by the throat in the doorway, strangled her with a rope. She was still alive, then he cut her throat with a knife, the dog died. Then he found an ax in G.'s house and with this ax cut it into three parts. He threw all the parts of the dog through the window into the courtyard of the house. Then, having put on a jacket, having taken the TV and the antenna, and the stick with which the lock was breaking, G. and X left the house. He did not see or take money in the house. Perhaps he burned this money along with the linen used to heat the stove.
Guilty accused J.E.V. for crimes committed confirmed by a combination of the following evidence.
The testimony of the victim Kh.T.V. at the hearing that she lives with her common-law husband G.P. in the apartment № house № Bogoroditsky district of the Tula region. On December 31, 2009 they both left to celebrate the New Year on a visit to the city, and returned only on January 1, 2010, at about 15 o’clock. She went to the front door of the house, which she closed on a padlock on December 31, 2009, it turned out that the breakdown with the lock was broken, the door was open. He and G. entered the house, found a mess in the house, the whole floor in the kitchen was covered with blood, the stove was flooded, which they did not heat on that day. She found that in the booth near the house there was no dog named “Rada”, yellow. Near the house in the common courtyard are three parts of the dog - the head and two parts of the body. Having examined the house’s premises, she found that they were missing: the Yunost TV in the black case, the Volga indoor antenna and the black men's winter jacket belonging to G., in addition to that, the money in the amount of 3,000 rubles that she had stored in the closet was lost under the laundry. She saved up this money in order to pay for the light, because for non-payment the light in their house was turned off. She saved money from retirement. All items from the closet were thrown to the floor. Some of the things were absent, since with them J. heated the stove. This she suggests, since the stove was warm by the time they arrived, although there was no heating material in the house. Every day they go to the forest with G. and gather firewood for the furnace. On December 31, 2009, they did not heat the stove, as they were going to visit, there was no firewood in the house. Having examined all the things, she found that her old clothes disappeared from the closet: dresses, old jackets, underwear, how much all this was gone, she does not know, they do not represent any value to her. Valuable for her were a TV, antenna, G.'s jacket and 3,000 rubles. The television and antenna belonged to J.E., but in the summer of 2009, he temporarily changed from G. to a tape recorder. G. gave his tape recorder to J., and J. brought him his television and antenna; they did not discuss the terms of exchange. She does not believe that the TV and antenna belong to them, although the tape recorder was not returned to them, because they changed things temporarily. She estimates a men's jacket - at 160 rubles. Damage from breaking the castle is not caused. The dog did not represent material value for her, since one of the inhabitants of the farm gave it to them as a puppy. She does not want to file a civil lawsuit.
According to the witness G.P.E. at the hearing that on the night of December 31, 2009 he and his roommate Kh.T.V. went to visit their friends to celebrate the New Year. On January 1, 2010, at about 15 o’clock, they returned home, found that the lock on the door of the house was torn off, there was a mess in the house, the whole floor in the kitchen was in the blood of a dog, which had previously been in a booth near the house. The TV, antenna and his winter jacket disappeared from the house. In the summer of 2009, he and J. decided to trade, he, G., gave him his tape recorder, and J. brought them his television set in black and white “Youth” and an antenna. They had an oral exchange agreement; they did not negotiate the expiration date of the agreement with J. They had a TV with X, and Zh had their tape recorder. He, G., believes that the TV and antenna do not belong to them, since the contract was with J.E.V. about the temporary exchange of things.
Protocol inspection of the scene of 1.01.2010, which reflects the situation after the crime and removed from the scene: padlock with breakdown, knife and ax (ld 7-15).
The inspection report dated 01.01.2010 of the house of J.E.V., during which the Yunost TV, indoor antenna and wooden stick were seized (ld 30-33).
The seizure protocol dated 01.01.2010 - a black winter jacket for men by J.E.V. (ld 49-51).
The inspection protocol and the decision on the recognition and admission to the case of material evidence - a knife, ax, wooden stick, TV, antenna, men's jacket, breakdown with padlock (ld 38-41, 60-61).
The expert’s opinion No. 293 t on January 21, 2010 that the free retail price of items submitted for the study, taking into account the percentage of wear, is: TV - 500 rubles, antenna - 59 rubles 50 kopecks, jacket - 160 rubles (ld 57 -59).
The face-to-face protocol between the victim, Kh.T.V. and the suspect J.E.V., during which the victim Kh.T.V. fully confirmed the testimony given to her earlier. Suspect J.E.V. testimony of the victim Kh.T.V. partially confirmed, explaining that he did not see and did not take in the house of H.T.V. money (ld 74-75).
Assessing the allegations made by the party, examined at the hearing, the evidence presented above in the verdict in their entirety, the court notes that all of them were obtained in compliance with the requirements of the criminal procedure law.
The court, evaluating the protocol of the inspection of the scene and the protocol of the inspection of material evidence, considers that the inspection was carried out in accordance with the standards of Art. 164, 176, Art. 177 h. 1-4 Code of Criminal Procedure, seizure protocol in accordance with the provisions of Article 183 Code of Criminal Procedure, in the presence of witnesses. No comments were received on these investigative actions from participating parties. In this connection, the court finds them admissible and reliable evidence.
Assessing the expert’s opinion no. Of the year (ld 58-59), the court notes that this examination was carried out by an expert with higher education, long work experience and in accordance with the norms of the criminal procedure legislation, with an explanation of his rights and responsibilities. The court has no reason not to trust the conclusions of this expert. In this connection, the court finds the specified examination admissible and reliable evidence.
The court finds no reason to doubt the reliability of the testimony of the victim X T. T. and witness G.P.E. at the hearing cited above in the verdict, on the circumstances committed by Zh.E.V. crimes. The court considers them consistent, logical, consistent with each other, supported by written evidence.
The court, assessing the testimony of the victim Kh.T.V. and witness G.P.E., notes that they were previously familiar with the defendant J.E.V. The presence, quarrel of conflicts between them and J.E.V. court not established. In such circumstances, the court excludes the possibility of a reservation on the part of the aforementioned victim and witness of the defendant J.E.V ..
The court, evaluating the testimony of the defendant Zh.E.V., notes that they are grateful, supported by the totality of the evidence examined during the trial. In this connection, the court considers them evidence of his guilt in the crimes committed by him.
Assessing the allegations made by the party and the evidence examined during the trial in their entirety, the court considers it established and proved that on January 1, 2010, from 9 hours 00 minutes to 15 hours 00 minutes, Zh.E.V. illegally entered the home of H.T.V., located at: Tula region, Bogoroditsky district,, house No., apartment No., against the will of H.T.V. living in it and qualifies his actions under part 1 of article 149 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
In addition, Zh.E.V., on January 1, 2010, from 9:00 to 15:00, after illegally entering apartment No. Kh.T.V., located at the following address: Bogoroditsky, Tula Region district, the house committed animal cruelty, resulting in his death, committed out of hooligan motives, using sadistic methods and qualifies his actions under part 1 of article 245 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The court agrees with the arguments of the public prosecutor on the re-qualification of the actions of J. E.V. with paragraph "a" part 3 of article 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on part 1 of article 149 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since the court has not established that Zh.E.V. entered illegally in the apartment of H.T.V. for the purpose of theft. Based on the testimony of the defendant Zh.E.V. at the hearing, he entered Kh.T.V.'s apartment to pick up the TV and antenna belonging to him, which he temporarily exchanged with G.P.E. to his tape recorder. Victim Kh.T.V. and witness G.P.E. at the hearing they confirmed that the TV and antenna that were in their house belonged to Zh.E.V., with whom G.P.E. exchanged temporarily for a tape recorder. The fact of theft of 3,000 rubles from the apartment of H.T.V. court also not installed. As follows from the testimony of the defendant Zh.E.V. at the hearing, he had the money from H.T. He didn’t take it, perhaps he burned this money along with the linen used to heat the stove. From the testimony of the victim Kh.T.V. it follows that she really kept the money along with the linen in the wardrobe, when she came home she found out that some of the things were missing, since they drowned the stove. Thus, the testimony of the victim confirms the testimony of J.E.V. that he could burn money along with things in the stove. Any other evidence with certainty that Zh.E.V. He didn’t burn the money, but stole from Kh.TV. J.E.V. stole from the house only a winter men's jacket. However, the intention to steal a men's jacket from J.E.V. arose already while in the house of H.T.V., but since the cost of this jacket is only 160 rubles, then in the actions of J. E.V. upon the theft of the men's jacket there is no composition of a criminal offense under Part 1 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code, since the amount of damage is less than one thousand rubles, and forms only the composition of an administrative offense under Article. 7.27 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.
In the actions of J.E.V. contains the offense provided for in Part 1 of Article 245 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, because it is unreasonable, neglecting generally accepted moral standards, that is, from hooligan motives, using sadistic methods, namely painful methods for the animal, tried to strangle the dog by hanging it with a rope to the door, and then she cut her throat with a knife, having brutally mistreated a H.TV dog, which led to her death.
Assigning punishment to defendant Zh.E.V., the court takes into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crimes committed by him, the influence of the punishment imposed on his correction.
In imposing sentence, the court also takes into account the identity of the defendant Zh.E.V. at the place of residence is characterized satisfactorily. Not registered with a narcologist and psychiatrist. Convictions for crimes he had previously committed have not been withdrawn or canceled in the manner prescribed by law. He was brought to administrative responsibility in 2009 and 2010. Opinion of the victim Kh.TV., who asked strictly for J.E.V. do not punish.
Circumstances mitigating punishment Zh.E.V. for each crime, the court considers his confession of guilt and remorse.
The circumstance aggravating the punishment is the presence of a relapse in J.E.V.
Having assessed the above circumstances, given the financial situation of the defendant Zh.E.V., the court considers it necessary to assign him a penalty in the form of corrective labor for each crime committed.
No civil action was filed in the case.
Based on the aforesaid and guided by Article. Art. 303, 304, 307-309 Code of Criminal Procedure, court
SENTENED:
recognize J.E.V. guilty of an offense under Part 1 of Art. 139 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and sentenced him to corrective labor for a period of 6 (six) months with serving in places determined by the local government in agreement with the body performing the sentence of corrective labor, but in the area of the convict's place of residence, with 20% retention from earnings to state revenue,
recognize J.E.V. guilty of an offense under Part 1 of Art. 245 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and sentenced him to corrective labor for a period of 6 (six) months with serving in places determined by the local government in agreement with the body executing the sentence of corrective labor, but in the area of the convict's place of residence, with 20% retention from earnings to state revenue.
In accordance with Part 2 of Art. 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the aggregate of crimes by complete addition of sentences, the final punishment shall be assigned to him in the form of correctional labor for a term of 1 (one) year with serving in places determined by the local government in agreement with the body performing the sentence of correctional labor, but in the area of residence convicted, with a 20% deduction from earnings to state revenue.
In accordance with part 5 of article 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for the aggregate of crimes by partial addition of the sentences imposed by this sentence and by the sentence of the justice of the peace of the judicial section No. 8 of the Bogoroditsky district of the Tula region of February 9, 2010, the final punishment of Zh.E.V. to appoint in the form of correctional labor with serving in places determined by the local government in agreement with the body executing the sentence of corrective labor, but in the area of the convict's place of residence, for a period of 2 (two) years with 20% withholding from earnings to state revenue. Set off the time spent in custody by Zh.E.V. from March 12, 2010 to April 9, 2010 inclusive.
Material evidence in the case in accordance with Article 81 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation: a wooden stick, destroyed upon the entry into force of the sentence, the knife and ax returned to the victim Kh.T.V.
Prior to the entry into force of the sentence, the preventive measure of Zh.E.V. change to a recognizance not to leave the place and proper behavior, having released him from custody from the courtroom.
The verdict can be appealed appeal to the judicial board for criminal cases of the Tula regional court within ten days from the date of its announcement.

Presiding Davydova H.The.

The verdict entered into force on 04/20/2010.
Source: https://drug.2x2forum.ru/t237-topic

 

[Адвокат]

SENTENCE
In the name of the Russian Federation
village Miasskoye

The Krasnoarmeysky district court of the Chelyabinsk region represented by the presiding judge Klepinina G.V., with the secretary Shagivaleeva Yu.S., with the participation of the public prosecutor, assistant prosecutor of the Krasnoarmeysky district prosecutor's office Gataullina M.A., victims G., Sh., Defendant I. V. M. his defense counsel - counsel Panova B.P., having examined in open court the criminal case materials in relation to:
I. born in 1989 in s.P. M district of Karaganda region, living in s.R.T. st.Ch. 70, Krasnoarmeysky district of Chelyabinsk region, a citizen of the Russian Federation, with the formation of 5 classes, single, not working, high school, convicted:
July 20, 2009 by the Krasnoarmeyskiy District Court under Article 158, Part 2, Clause “c” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - to 2 years in prison, probation with a trial period of two years;
accused of committing crimes, provided for by Article.245 h.1; Article 158, part 1; Article 166, Part 1 of the Criminal Code,
installed:
And V.M. committed intentional crimes in the following circumstances.
In the period from 11/15/2009 to 11/16/2009, the time is not exactly set, AND V.M. being intoxicated in the courtyard of house number 9 on the street. N in s. M of the Krasnoarmeysky district of the Chelyabinsk region, out of selfish motives, showed cruel treatment to animals, which led to their death. So, I V.M., who was at the above address, had a mercenary intent to secretly steal someone else's property. In order to realize his criminal intent, he went to the VAZ- car, the state registration plate, trying to secretly steal the car radio that was in the car. At this time, two dogs on a leash in the yard, nicknamed “Elsa” and “Zhulka,” began to bark loudly. And V.M., fearing that barking of dogs might attract the attention of unauthorized persons, which could interfere with the implementation of his selfish intent to the end, wishing to cause bodily harm to dogs, picked up the forks that were in the yard, after which, displaying ill-treatment animals, deliberately struck a lot of blows with the indicated forks on the head and trunk of both dogs. Intentional criminal acts AND V.M. caused the death of animals, namely two dogs belonging to G.
In addition, in the period from November 15, 2009 to November 16, 2009, the time was not precisely established for I, who was intoxicated in the courtyard of house No. 9 on ul. N in s. M of the Krasnoarmeysky district of the Chelyabinsk region, there was a criminal intent to secretly steal someone else's property. In order to realize his criminal intent, he out of mercenary motives approached the VAZ- car, located in the courtyard of the indicated house, the state registration plate, after which, by free access, secretly stole the “LG” car radio belonging to G. from his car. G. material damage in the amount of 1200 rubles. He ordered the stolen property at his discretion.
In addition, on the night of 11/27/2009 to 11/28/2009, I., who was in a state of alcoholic intoxication at the house number 23 on the street. P in s. M of the Krasnoarmeysky district of the Chelyabinsk region, there was a criminal intent to illegally seize a VAZ car, the state registration mark belonged to Sh. In order to realize his criminal intent, I. through the right front door entered the car interior, disassembled the ignition switch and started the engine by connecting wires, after what went in the direction of. RT T Krasnoarmeysky district of the Chelyabinsk region. On km. M-Sh highway, having lost control of the car, drove outside the carriageway, where it was discovered by police.
Defendant I. pleaded guilty to these crimes in full and explained that in mid-November 2009 he and P. drank alcohol. Then they decided to sell his cell phone in order to buy more alcohol. A cell phone offered to buy G. The latter agreed, he handed over the phone, but G disappeared, did not transfer the money. On the evening of November 15, 2009, he was drunk, decided to go home to G and find out about the phone. Together with P. they came to the house of G., but no one was at home. He went into the courtyard of the house first, there were two dogs that rushed at him, barked, attracted attention, prevented him from approaching the car, one of them bit him, then he immediately took pitchforks in the yard and began to beat dogs, beat them before as long as the dogs were not silent, apparently beat them to death. After that, he went to the VAZ- car, the car doors were not closed. He opened the door and stole a car radio from the car, which he brought home to P. Subsequently, this radio was returned to the victim. In addition, on the night of November 28, 2009, he was in S.M., he needed to leave for S.R-T, since he did not have time to take the bus. Then he went to the VAZ- car, located near house 23 on P street in a village, the car doors were open. He entered the passenger compartment of the car, disassembled the ignition switch, connected the wires, started the car and drove off, however, he drove into the ditch on the way and could not leave, he was detained by police officers here. He stole the radio and killed G.’s dogs because he took his cell phone and didn’t give the money back. Repent of their deeds.
In addition to the testimony of the defendant I. at the preliminary investigation and at the hearing, his guilt in the commission of these crimes is confirmed by other evidence investigated in court.
From G.'s statement, it follows that she asks to bring to justice those who injured her dogs and stole the car radio (ld 6);
From the statement of Sh., It follows that she asks to prosecute the persons who hijacked her car VAZ-state registration mark (ld 7);
According to the certificate, the cost of the “LG” car radio is 1200 rubles (ld 22).
From the protocol inspection of the scene of November 19, 2009 it follows that in the courtyard of the house number 9 on the street. N in s. M of the Krasnoarmeysky district of the Chelyabinsk region, in the booth, on the ground near the booth there are brown marks that look like blood, under a canopy in a wooden box there is a gray dog with no signs of life. In addition, during the inspection of the scene, the “LG” car radio was seized (ld27-33).
According to the seizure protocol, the pitchfork was removed from G. (ld 51-52).
According to the protocol of inspection of objects, during the inquiry the seized radio tape recorder of the LG brand and pitchfork (ld 34, 53) were examined.
According to the receipt, the victim G. received the “LG” radio tape recorder and pitchfork seized (ld 36, 55).
From the protocol inspection of the scene of November 28, 2009 it follows that in the courtyard of the house number 23 on the street. P in s. M of the Krasnoarmeysky district of the Chelyabinsk region a VAZ automobile is not registered with the state registration mark belonging to Sh. (Ld. 45-48).
From the protocol inspection of the scene of November 28, 2009, it follows that 2 km. motor roads S. M - S. B ”a VAZ-state registration mark was found and seized ... During the inspection of the car, fingerprints were removed from the driver’s door (ld 37-42).
According to the protocol of inspection of objects, in the course of the inquiry, a VAZ-state registration mark vehicle was examined (ld 43).
According to the receipt, victim Sh. Received a seized VAZ-state registration plate ...
From the conclusion of the forensic fingerprint examination, it follows that the fingerprint, copied onto a piece of adhesive tape measuring 71x50 mm, taken from the driver’s door of a VAZ-state registration plate when examining the scene of the incident of November 28, 2009, was left with the middle finger of I.’s right hand (l. d.60-63).
The victim G. at the hearing explained that on November 15, 2009, she had gone to her mother in the evening and there was nobody at home. She returned late and found nothing at first. In the morning I found out that a car radio was stolen from a car in the courtyard, and there were dogs near the barn, they were badly beaten, one was still alive, the other showed no signs of life. When a veterinarian was called, the latter said that the dogs were injured incompatible with life, and subsequently the second dog also died. She reported the incident to the police. Subsequently, the radio was returned to her, she found out that he had scored the dogs and stole the car radio I. She also found out that he beat the dogs with a pitchfork, which he took from them in the yard.
The victim Sh. Explained that in the early morning of November 28, 2009, her husband discovered that they had stolen their VAZ- car, which was standing in the courtyard of the house. They reported the incident to the police. After some time it was reported that their car was found near S.M. The husband drove towards S. Sh and here he saw a car and I. Here they found out that the car was stolen by I. There were technical damages in the car, and therefore he asked to recover pecuniary damage in the amount of 5,000 rubles.
Witness O. explained that she was a veterinarian. In November 2009, she was called to examine animals, two dogs in the courtyard of house number 9 on the street. N in s. M Krasnoarmeysky district of the Chelyabinsk region. On examination, one of the dogs showed bodily injuries, namely multiple fractures of the spinal column, fractures of the sacral spine, two ribs were broken, and internal organs were damaged. The second examined dog had bodily injuries, namely multiple injuries of internal organs, a fracture of two ribs, the sacral spine was killed, and the dog had multiple wounds on its face. These injuries in dogs are not compatible with life. At the time of the inspection, one of the dogs was alive, but now this dog has also died. On this fact, she drew up an act, which was transmitted by the police.
Witness P. explained that on 14.11.2009, his acquaintance And, with whom they had been drinking, came to him. November 15, 2009, they still wanted to drink, but neither I. nor I. I. offered to sell his phone. On the street they met his neighbor - G, who was offered to buy this phone. G. agreed to buy a phone for 300 rubles. G. picked up the phone, said he would give the money back later. They waited for him for about 1 hour, G. never came. Then they sold his phone, bought alcohol for money, drank it again. In the evening, I proposed to go to G.'s home and find out why the latter did not return money for the phone. They went to G.'s house. I. was the first to enter the courtyard of the house. When I entered, dogs began to bark at him. When he went into the courtyard of the house, he saw that And strike with a pitchfork on dogs, pricked them with a pitchfork. G had no one at home; a padlock hung on the front door. And he beat the dogs until they were silent. When the dogs were silent, And he went to the car standing in the courtyard of the house, opened the door of the car, and did something in the passenger compartment. After which he turned and walked toward the house, followed by IV.M. He had a radio in his hands. They came home where they drank, after which he went to bed. When I woke up, I V.M. was not at home. He found the radio tape recorder that I. had stolen in the courtyard of his house and gave it to Ch. To take the radio to G. Later, Ch told him that the radio had been transferred to G.
Witness G. explained that his parents had a VAZ-state license plate. in this car there was a radio tape recorder of the LG brand, the radio tape recorder was acquired together with the car. They also kept two dogs. November 15, 2009, in the daytime, near his house, he met P and I, the latter offered him to buy a cell phone for 300 rubles. He picked up the phone and gave it to his relatives. I. He said that he could take the money from his grandmother, since he was in a hurry in Chelyabinsk. On November 16, 2009, in the evening, he learned from his mother that the LG radio was stolen from a VAZ-state registration plate in the courtyard, and both dogs were also beaten. Currently, dogs have died from the injuries. The incident was reported to the police. Subsequently, the car radio brought Ch.
Witness Ch. Clarified that on November 19, 2009, her cohabitant's brother P., brought the radio and asked her to take the radio to G. P. did not explain anything about where the radio came from. On the same day, she took the radio tape recorder G. She did not ask P. for details.
From the act of unscheduled inspection of a private compound in the house number 9 on the street. Nv. M of the Krasnoarmeysky district of the Chelyabinsk region compiled by the veterinarian of the OSU Krasnoarmeyskaya veterinary station O indicates that when examining the corpse of the first dog (outbred, 2.5 years old, Elsa), multiple fractures of the spinal column, multiple fractures of the sacral spine, two ribs were broken, the spleen and liver were badly damaged . The second dog (outbred, 12 years old, Julia) has multiple injuries of internal organs, a fracture of the sacral spine, ribs, multiple traces of beatings on the muzzle, a wound on the muzzle in the upper jaw (ld 20).
Having analyzed the obtained court considers the actions of the defendant And properly qualified:
-Art.245 h.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the basis of cruelty to animals, which resulted in their death, if this act was committed out of mercenary motives;
-Art. 158 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the basis of theft, that is, the secret theft of another's property;
- Art. 166 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the basis of unlawful seizure of a car without theft (hijacking).
I. intentionally, out of mercenary motives, in order to facilitate the theft of the car radio from the victim’s car, G. took a pitchfork and inflicted a lot of blows on the body of the dogs with a pitchfork, the beating of the dogs continued until the dogs stopped selling signs of life. As a result of the criminal actions of I., the dogs were injured incompatible with life, which resulted in the death of the animals.
The defendant secretly for the owner actually seized the property of others in his favor, caused real material damage to the injured G., acted intentionally, with a mercenary purpose, and understood the unlawful nature of his actions.
I. without the purpose of embezzlement, having opened the car door from the driver’s side, he entered the car of the injured Sh. Where, having connected the wires, he started the car and started moving. The defendant acted on purpose, understood the unlawful nature of his actions.
The totality of all the evidence collected in the case is sufficient to resolve the issue of the guilt of the defendant.
The court qualifies the actions of the defendant I. Article. 245 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; Article 155 of Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; Article 166, part 1 of the Criminal Code, his guilt is proved.
Due to the fact that the victim G. claims are not claimed, the matter was not discussed by the court.
Claims filed by Sh. To recover pecuniary damage in the amount of 5,000 rubles for the damaged car cannot be considered at this court hearing, and must be left without consideration, since evidence has not been submitted to the injured court of evidence. However, the victim retains the right to appeal to the court with these requirements in civil proceedings, with the provision of relevant evidence.
When sentencing a defendant, the court, in accordance with clause 6 and article 60 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, takes into account the nature, degree of public danger and circumstances of the crimes committed, the identity of the defendant, circumstances mitigating the punishment, as well as the effect of the penalty imposed on the correction of the defendant, accepts attention to the opinion of victims of punishment.
Defendant I. committed a medium-gravity crime during a suspended sentence for a medium-gravity crime, provided for in Article 158 p.
As circumstances mitigating the punishment of the defendant, the court takes into account that I. pleaded guilty completely and repented of his deed, took measures to partially compensate the damage.
The court did not establish aggravating circumstances.
Taking into account that three deliberate crimes were committed, one of which is classified as moderate by law, given the need for the nature and degree of social danger of the crime to be commensurate with the circumstances of its commission and the identity of the perpetrator, the court considers it necessary to select the defendant with punishment related to isolation from society , that is, imprisonment is real.
The grounds for the imposition of a milder sentence using Article 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as the sentencing using Article 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - conditional conviction, the court has not been established.
Since I. was sentenced by sentence of the Krasnoarmeyskiy District Court of the Chelyabinsk Region of July 20, 2007 under condition of Article 158, part 2, paragraph “c” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to two years of imprisonment with a probation period of 2 years, that is, being conditionally convicted, during the probationary term committed a crime of moderate gravity, the punishment I. should be assigned taking into account the provisions of Article 74 of Part 5, 70 of the Criminal Code.
Serving I. in accordance with Art. 58 h. 1 p. “A” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation should be appointed in the colony of the settlement.
Guided by Article.307-309 Code of Criminal Procedure, court
SENTENED:
Recognize I. guilty of committing crimes under Article 245 Part 1; Article 158, part 1; Article 166, part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and sentenced him:
- according to article 244 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - six months of corrective labor with deduction of 10% of the salary in state revenue;
- According to Article 158, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - one year in prison;
- according to Article 166, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - two years in prison.
On the basis of Art.
On the basis of Art. 74 h. 5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, to cancel the conditional conviction imposed by I. on the verdict of the Krasnoarmeysky District Court of the Chelyabinsk Region of July 20, 2009.
Based on Art. 70 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, based on the aggregate of sentences to the newly appointed punishment, partially add the unserved punishment according to the verdict of July 20, 2009, and finally sentence the sentence - imprisonment for 3 (three) years with the sentence being served in the colony settlement.
The term of punishment shall be calculated from December 3, 2009, that is, from the moment of actual detention.
Preventive measure I. until the sentence comes into force to leave the former - detention.
Civil action of the victim Sh. About damages for damage to the car - leave without consideration, explaining the victim the right to appeal to the above requirements in court in civil proceedings.
Release the victims: Sh. From the obligation to store the material evidence transferred to her in the present criminal case - a VAZ-2 automobile; G. from the obligation to store the material evidence transferred to her in the present criminal case, he also filed the LG brand radio.
The evidence in this criminal case, the key is to destroy.
The verdict can be appealed appeal to the Chelyabinsk regional court within 10 days from the date of its announcement, and convicted - And - at the same time from the date of delivery of a copy of the verdict. In the case of a cassation appeal, the convicted person has the right to petition for his participation in the consideration of the criminal case by the court of cassation.

Presiding: signature.
Copy is correct: Judge:

reference
The verdict came into force.
Referee:
Source: https://drug.2x2forum.ru/t237-topic

 

[Адвокат]

Re: Sentencias judiciales por crueldad animal Art.245 del Código Penal

FRASE
En nombre de la Federación de Rusia
Zlatoust 08 de noviembre de 2007
El magistrado de la sección judicial No. 7 de la ciudad de Zlatoust, región de Chelyabinsk.
Zakirova S. L.
cuando el secretario Steinberg E.M.
con la participación del fiscal asistente fiscal adjunto de la ciudad de Zlatoust
Shapovalova L.N.
acusado C.,
representante legal de la víctima K.,
examinado en audiencia pública en los locales del tribunal
materiales de casos penales en relación con S., nacido en 1977, con educación secundaria incompleta, sin trabajo, no condenado, acusado de cometer un delito en virtud del art. 245 h. 1 del Código Penal,

instalado:

S. 01 de septiembre de 2007 en la noche, en estado de ebriedad en el patio de la casa 5 en la calle. Lenin en el pueblo El distrito central de Zlatoust de la región de Chelyabinsk, junto con el infante K., nacido en 1997, recogió un gatito a la edad de aproximadamente tres meses y en presencia de un joven K. golpeó deliberadamente al gatito contra la pared de un garaje de concreto, tratándolo cruelmente y queriendo matarlo. . Después de esto, S., continuando sus intenciones dirigidas a la crueldad hacia los animales y dándose cuenta de que a través de sus acciones causa sufrimiento moral al joven K., que era consciente de la naturaleza de las acciones crueles de S. en relación con el gatito, golpeó deliberadamente al mismo gatito con varios golpes de metal. bloquear en el área de la cabeza. Las acciones deliberadas indicadas de S. causaron la muerte de un gatito.
El acusado S. se declaró culpable en la audiencia, se arrepintió y explicó que había matado al gatito porque no se había desarrollado y estaba enfermo. Lamenta que todo sucedió en presencia de los hijos de K-howl.
La culpabilidad de S. está confirmada por el testimonio del representante legal de la víctima K., quien demostró que el 01 de septiembre de 2007, ocurrió un escándalo entre ella y S., después de lo cual S. mató al gatito, mientras su hija menor Olga y la mayor Svetlana, de 17 años, estaban presentes. Después del incidente, las hijas estaban muy preocupadas;
materiales del caso: informe (ld 2), declaración (ld 8), protocolo para la revisión de la escena del incidente (ld 7), certificado de nacimiento (ld 81).
Las acciones de S. están correctamente calificadas en la Parte 1 del Art. 245 del Código Penal - como trato cruel a los animales, que llevó a su muerte, si este acto se cometió en presencia de menores.
Cuando S. es sentenciado, el juez de paz tiene en cuenta la naturaleza y el grado de peligro público del delito cometido, que pertenece a la categoría de baja gravedad, la identidad del autor no ha sido condenada previamente, se caracteriza por vecinos y el comisionado de distrito en el lugar de residencia satisfactoriamente (ld 97, 98), no tiene lugar de trabajo permanente.
Como circunstancias atenuantes, el juez de paz admite que S. se declaró totalmente culpable, se arrepintió. No se han establecido circunstancias agravantes. En este sentido, considera la posible aplicación del art. 73 del Código Penal en relación con S.
Basado en lo anterior, guiado por el artículo. 308, 309 Código de Procedimiento Penal, Juez de paz

Aparejo en acerca de r y l:

Reconocer a S. culpable de un delito en virtud de la Parte 1 del art. 245 del Código Penal, y lo sentenció a trabajo correccional por un período de seis meses con la deducción del veinte por ciento de su ingreso mensual en los ingresos del estado al servir en lugares determinados por el gobierno local de acuerdo con el cuerpo que ejecuta el castigo en forma de trabajo correccional, pero en el área Residencia de S.
Basado en el art. 73 del Código Penal de la Federación de Rusia, el castigo impuesto por S. se considerará condicional con un período de prueba de seis meses, obligándolo a presentarse periódicamente en la inspección penal ejecutiva para el registro, no cambiar su lugar de residencia permanente sin notificar a la inspección penal ejecutiva, no visitar el lugar de venta de bebidas alcohólicas, estar en casa después del 22 horas
Medida preventiva antes de la entrada en vigor de la oración C. deje un reconocimiento de no irse.
El veredicto se puede apelar ante el tribunal de la ciudad de Zlatoust dentro de los diez días a partir de la fecha del anuncio a través del juez magistrado sentenciado.

Juez mundial:

Fuente: https://zlatoust.chel.sudrf.ru/modules.p ... _sud & id = 50

 

[Адвокат]

Re: Court sentences for animal cruelty Art.245 of the Criminal Code

P I R O V O R
IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

October 05, 2010 Ufa


The court, composed of the presiding justice of the peace, court plot No. 6 in the Oktyabrsky district of the city of Ufa, Republic of Bashkortostan Olenicheva EA
under the secretary of Abadovskaya T.Yu.
with the participation of the public prosecutor assistant prosecutor of the Oktyabrsky district of Ufa Fattakhova R.R.
defender - lawyer Yangirova E.R., who submitted a warrant for No. 056384, certificate No. 151,
Having examined in open court the criminal case against Pashin Yu.V., **. **. **** born, born in *** of the Republic of Bashkortostan, a citizen of the Russian Federation, registered and residing at: .Ufa, st. ******, d. ** apt. ***, special secondary education, not married, not working, liable for military service, convicted
June 20, 2007, by the Ordzhonikidze District Court of Ufa under Part 2 of Article 228 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, to 3 years of imprisonment with a probation period of 3 years,
accused of committing a crime, under Part.1 Article.245 of the Criminal Code,

U S T A N O V I L:

May 7, 2010 at about 02 hours 30 minutes, located at the address: Republic of Bashkortostan, Ufa, st. *******, d. ** apt. ***, Pashin Yu.V. being intoxicated, made a quarrel with cohabitant Vasilyeva MG In the course of the quarrel Pashin Yu.V. drew attention to the dog, owned by the right of ownership Vasilyeva MG Pekingese breed nicknamed "Charming Baby", which was silently under the chair, as a result of which Pashin Yu.V. there was an intention for cruelty to an animal, out of hooligan motives.
Carrying out his criminal intent, aimed at cruelty to the animal, out of hooligan motives, Pashin Yu.V., being in the kitchen, took up a dog belonging to the right of ownership Vasilieva MG Pekingese breed nicknamed “Charming Baby” and, acting on hooligan motives, intentionally, for no reason hit the dog on the gas stove and on the floor, which resulted in the death of the animal.
Based on the certificate of the veterinarian of the epizootologist of the Ufa city veterinary station, Vasilieva MG, on 07.05.2010 she treated a corpse of a Pekingese dog nicknamed “Charming Baby”, sex female, birthday 02.21.2004, stamp DBG 350, certificate Origin No. 343300 issued by the RKF dated 09/12/2006. External signs of the dog: red outflow from the natural openings of the head. According to the hostess, the animal was injured as a result of a blow to the head on a hard surface. Registration in the outpatient journal No. 901 of 05/07/2010. It is recommended to contact the Department of "Pathanomy" BGAU for further autopsy.
On the basis of Act No. 85 of the Federal State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education “Bashkir State Agrarian University” of the Consultative and Diagnostic Center of Veterinary Medicine of the Department of Anatomy, Pathology, Obstetrics and Surgery ”dated May 07, 2010, with pathoatomic autopsy of the corpse of a dog it was established: extensive hemorrhage in the subcutaneous tissue of the abdominal wall, chest the cavity is filled with blood about 50 ml, venous congestion of the liver and kidneys, plethora and pulmonary edema, anemia of the visible mucous membranes, expansion of the right ventricle of the heart, asphyxia. The conclusion found that the death of a Pekingese dog named “Charming Baby” occurred as a result of an injury followed by bleeding into the chest cavity, pain shock and respiratory arrest.
Defendant Pashin Yu.The.The. at the hearing did not plead guilty, explained to the court that he loved this dog very much. On that day, he was intoxicated, sitting in the kitchen, a dog lying nearby. He took her in his arms and laid her on his lap, he wanted to feed her, but she refused to eat. Then he decided to get up and give her something to eat in a cup, but when he got up, he could not restrain her and the dog fell to the floor and stopped moving. Later, his acquaintance Robert, working in the Ministry of Emergencies, began to give her artificial respiration, and, apparently, he killed her, not calculating his strength, while doing artificial respiration. When he found out that the dog had died, he was very upset and began to ruin everything. His common-law wife, Vasilyeva MG, because she could not calm him, called the police. Police officers, taking advantage of illiteracy M. Vasilyeva and her upset condition, they decided to fabricate a criminal case against him that he allegedly killed a dog, although he did not kill her, it was his favorite dog. At the same time, police officers put pressure on Vasilyeva M.G. and on him.
The victim Vasilieva M.G. at the hearing, she refused the evidence previously given by her during the preliminary investigation, explained to the court that on May 6, 2010 she was with the children in the hospital when she returned home in the evening, her common husband Pashin Yu.V. was at home with a friend Robert with whom they drank alcohol, her friend Gulchachak also came. The children began asking to spend the night with Gulchachak, then Gulchachak took them to her and returned with a bottle of vodka. Since Pashin Yu.V. and his friend was already drunk so that they got less, she drank with them. When they ate and drank, the dog was lying under the bench, Pashin Yu.V. I wanted to feed her, but she didn’t eat, he began to get up and she fell out of his hands, knocked and fell sideways. She began to help her. Robert began to give her artificial respiration, but then the dog's eyes went blank and Robert said that the dog was dead. Then Yura began to destroy everything, throw an ashtray, things. She, since she could not calm him down, ran to the police, ran for 2 hours, her condition was stressful, shock. She testified to a police officer Shakirov, and then to another. But they wrote something completely different, not what she said. She signed without reading, as she was in a state of shock and trusted the interrogating officer Regina Akbasheva. She herself graduated from only 9 classes, was brought up in an orphanage, where she was taught to trust people. The interrogator told her - “write to Pashin”, about which she wrote a statement - she did not understand, thought she was writing a statement to bring Pashin to administrative responsibility. When she returned home with police officers, Pashin was at home. Then she cleaned the apartment, buried the dog. After some time, a police officer Shakirov returned and said that he needed to take a picture of everything, then she told him that she had already buried the dog, he told her that the dog had to be dug up, she dug up, Shakirov took a picture and left. She buried the dog again. Then Shakirov came again and said that the dog should be taken to a veterinary clinic so that a conclusion was made there. She again dug up the dog and, together with the police officers, went to the veterinary clinic located on Akbuzat, they said that she needed to go to the Bashkir Agrarian University, then she went there with the police officers. She paid for the examination herself, as police officers did not pay.
Having questioned the defendant, the victim, witnesses, having examined the materials of the criminal case, the court considers Pashina Yu.V. guilty of an offense under Part 1 of Art. 245 of the Criminal Code.
The defendant’s guilt in committing a crime under Part 1 of Article 245 of the Criminal Code is confirmed:
- The testimony of the victim, Vasilyeva M.G., given by her during the preliminary investigation, despite the fact that she refused them at the hearing, according to which she lives with roommate Pashin Yu.V. and two children. On May 7, 2010, at about 11 pm, she returned to her home, where Yuri was with his family friend Robert. Also at home was her friend Gulchachak, who looked after her children. Yuri and Robert sat in the room and drank beer, they were intoxicated. Since it was hot and that Yuri and Robert got less beer, she considered that they wouldn’t need beer and asked her and her friend to pour a glass of beer. Gulchachak stayed with them for ten minutes, after which she took the children to her home so that the children could spend the night with her, since Yuri was intoxicated. Gulchachak took the children to her home and returned to them. During the conversation, about 02 hours and 30 minutes, while in the kitchen, Yuri said that she made a wish, to which she replied that she did not need anything and that she had everything and she had the only desire for Yuri to stop drinking alcohol. Yuri reacted aggressively to her words, began to rage and threw an ashtray, hit the door jamb of the kitchen. Then Yuri began to throw everything, toys of children, dishes. At this time, under the chair in the kitchen, her Pekingese dog, nicknamed “Charming Baby”, lay, did not bark, did not bite, did not bother anyone. Yuri grabbed the dog by the head and hit her head on the stove and threw her dog to the floor with all his might, although the dog did not bother anyone. At this time, she noticed that something was wrong with the dog, the dog was lying calmly. She immediately called Robert, who went to their house. Robert said that they should transfer the dog to the hall so that he could have artificial respiration, as he used to work as a lifeguard in the Ministry of Emergencies. At this time, Yuri was in the kitchen. Robert twice gave the dog artificial respiration, and she noticed that the dog's eyes went dark and she stopped breathing. Robert said the dog is dead. It was painful for her to see her dog die, not whining and not barking, since she was unpretentious, almost never barked. She went into the kitchen and informed Yuri that the dog was dead, which Yuri got angry at and made a scandal at home, started throwing things around the apartment, made a mess. She immediately called the police. There was no reason to show aggression against her dog; Yuri accompanied his actions with cynical composure. Previously, he did not show aggression against her dog. (ld 24-26)
Do not trust these testimonies of the victim M. Vasilieva the court has no grounds, the court considers them reliable, since they do not contradict the materials available in the case. At the same time, the court has reason to not trust the testimony of the victim given by her at the hearing, since they are not logical, not interconnected and contradict the case materials, as well as the testimonies of witnesses Shakirov R.Sh., Kadyrov U.G. The court considers that, giving the court conflicting evidence, the victim Vasilieva M.G. trying to protect the defendant from criminal liability;
- Statement by the victim Vasilyeva M.G. dated 05/07/2010, by which, being warned of criminal liability for knowingly false denunciation under Article 306 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Vasilieva MG He asks to prosecute Pashina Yu.V., **** born, who on 07/07/2010 about 02 hours 30 minutes, while in the apartment № *** of the house № ** on the street ***** ***** Ufa grabbed her dog and hit her on the floor, as a result of which she died, abused her dog. (ld 6);
- Act No. 85 of May 7, 2010 of the Consulting and Diagnostic Center of Veterinary Medicine of the Department of Anatomy, Pathology, Obstetrics and Surgery of the Federal State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education “Bashkir State Agrarian University”, according to which it is known from the anamnesis that on the eve of the mistress, she and her roommate Pashin Yu.V. there was a conflict during which he grabbed the dog by the head and hit the floor and stove. The dog died at 2.30 a.m. on May 7, 2010. An autopsy revealed: extensive hemorrhage in the subcutaneous tissue of the abdominal wall, the chest cavity was filled with blood of about 50 ml, venous hypermia of the liver and kidneys, plethora and pulmonary edema, anemia of the visible mucous membranes, expansion of the right ventricle, asphyxia. Conclusion: death occurred as a result of trauma, followed by bleeding in the chest cavity, pain shock and respiratory arrest.
- The testimony of witness Kadyrov UG, given to him at the hearing according to which he is a professor at the Department of Anatomy, Pathology, Obstetrics and Surgery of the Federal State-Funded Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education “Bashkir State Agrarian University”, work experience in this area for more than 40 years, is currently awarded an honorary sign "Professor Emeritus". By the nature of his activity, he very often has to meet with injuries of dogs and cats, as well as conduct their autopsy. On May 7, 2010, at about 2 pm, the corpse of a small dog weighing 3-4 kg was delivered to his work by his mistress. At an autopsy with the participation of his colleagues, it was found that the dog had injuries: extensive hemorrhage in the subcutaneous tissue of the abdominal wall, the chest cavity was filled with blood of about 50 ml, venous hypermia of the liver and kidneys, plethora and pulmonary edema, anemia of the visible mucous membranes, expansion of the right ventricle of the heart, asphyxia. The presence of blood in the chest cavity of the dog is associated with edema, weakening of cardiac activity, blood began to come out of the vessels. From the damages discovered, he and his colleagues unanimously concluded that the death of the dog was instant and arose as a result of very strong blows. There were no serious diseases in the dog that could have caused her death during the autopsy. The dog could not receive such damage by falling from the height of a person’s belt, both medium and tall, such damage could only form as a result of very strong blows. Assumes that in a drunken state during artificial respiration to a dog, a person weighing 50-70 kg. could inflict similar damage to the dog, but in the case of intentional strong blows. However, since the hostess herself was present during the autopsy, she reported that her roommate had a scandal, during which, grabbing the dog, hit her on the floor and stove, taking into account the damage to the dog, there were doubts that the death of this dog arose strong intentional strikes do not occur.
- testimony of witness Shakirov R.Sh., given to them at the hearing, according to which he works ********** of Ufa. He was on duty, he does not remember the exact date, at night he was approached by a woman whose last name also does not remember, since the house in which she lives is under the jurisdiction of another local police officer, she remembers that her name is Marina. Marina said that her roommate at home with a family friend drank alcohol, her friend Gulchachak was also in the apartment, so that he got less to drink with them too, then her roommate Pashin began to behave inappropriately, saying that he was the king and that she made a guess a wish. She replied that she had one desire for him to stop drinking. Then Pashin got angry, made a scandal, grabbed her beloved Pekingese dog and hit her on the stove and floor and went into another room, as a result of which the dog died. Then, Pashin left the room, asked - "The dog is dead," she answered - "Yes," then he started to smash everything. When he came to her home with Marina, there was a driver with him, also a police officer, Pashin was at home, behaved inappropriately, cursed with obscene language, then they drew up a protocol on administrative responsibility and took him to the police department. Vasilieva M.G. she was very excited, cried, said that it was her beloved dog, wrote a statement on criminal prosecution of Pashin. When he came to Marina’s apartment there everything was scattered, scattered, he photographed everything on his cell phone, including the corpse of the dog, and left with Pashin in the police department. Arriving at work, since he had never had such cases before, after consulting with his colleagues, he came to the conclusion that Pashin’s actions showed signs of a crime - cruelty to animals. Then he again went to Marina and told her that it was necessary to conduct an examination of the dog. Marina said that the dog had already been buried not far from home. Then she dug it out, put it in a bag, and she and her went to the veterinary clinic at Akbuzat. They recorded the fact of the death of the dog and said that it was necessary to go to an agricultural university for the conclusion. They went there, so a dog was opened and a conclusion was given. Later, victim Vasilieva MG was interrogated, and the defendant Pashin was hiding for a long time, then he was found in the area of Lake Kashkadan and taken to the police department. Then, after some time, Marina and Pashin stopped appearing in the police department and he went to their house, where Marina began to turn out from her testimony when he took her to another room and asked what was the matter, because she herself wanted to bring him to and wrote a statement, she replied that she was afraid of Pashin, he threatened to kill her, so she could not confirm everything that was said before with him. Marina herself paid for the examination of the dog. Any pressure on his part on Vasiliev MG It turned out, a statement on the involvement of Pashin Yu.V. wrote criminally herself on her own initiative, the testimony of Vasiliev MG also gave voluntarily and signing them, got acquainted with them.
Do not trust the testimony of witnesses Kadyrov UG, Shakirova R.Sh. the court has no reason, since the witnesses have been warned about responsibility for giving false testimonies, their testimony is logical and does not contradict the case file.
- certificate of origin No. 343300, according to which a Pekingese dog named “Charming Baby”, sex female, birthday 02.21.2004, stamp DBG 350, breeder **********, ***** ***, ********, ** - **, owner ********., Ufa, st. ******, *** - **, pedigree RKF 15520, red color (ld 13);
- a certificate from the veterinarian of the episoologist at the Ufa City Veterinary Station, according to which Vasilyeva MG, on 05.07.2010 treated a corpse of a Pekingese dog nicknamed “Charming Baby”, sex female, birthday 02.21.2004, stigma ** * ***, certificate of origin No. ****** issued by the RKF dated 09/12/2006. External signs of the dog: red outflow from the natural openings of the head. According to the hostess, the animal was injured as a result of a blow to the head on a hard surface. Registration in the outpatient journal No. 901 of 05/07/2010. It is recommended to contact the Department of "Pathanatomy" BGAU for further autopsy. (ld14);
- The face-to-face protocol between the victim, M. Vasilyeva. and the suspect Pashin Yu.V., during which the victim, Vasilieva M.G. testified that her roommate Pashin Yu.V., having the intention of cruelty to the animal, approached a Pekingese dog named “Charming Baby”, which belonged to her, which quietly sat under an armchair, grabbed her dog by the head and pulled her out from under chairs, hit her on the floor, then hit the dog on the stove, which Pashina Yu.V. fully exposed committing a crime. (ld 85-87);
- the protocol of the inspection of the scene of the incident of May 7, 2010, 02 hours and 40 minutes, during which the district police Shakirov R.Sh. at the address: Ufa, ********** street, ** apt. *** the inspection was carried out, the fact of the death of a Pekingese dog named “Charming Baby” (ld. 7 -8).
The testimony of witness Tagirova Z.A. her data at the hearing, according to which the defendant and the victim are her neighbors, but she does not communicate with them, saw that they sometimes walked with two children and a dog, on May 6-7, 2010 she was not at home, since she left with her son in Sterlitamak, she learned about the death of the dog from the police, she knows nothing more about this, as well as the testimony of witness Shaikhutdinova G.F., given by her during the preliminary investigation and announced in court that she lives in the neighborhood from the apartment *** in apartment No. *** on the street ********, d. ** Ufa, does not communicate with the family living in apartment No. ***. He knows that a man and a woman with children live in this apartment. From this apartment you can sometimes hear screams, noise and scandals. I saw that they had a dog of the Pekingese breed, which did not bark, did not bite, was small and harmless, and did not create any problems (ld 59-61) as proof that the defendant was guilty of this crime or not .
The defendant’s argument that the dog fell from the height of his lumbar, slipping out of his hands, then stopped moving, and that the dog could die as a result of the fact that his acquaintance Robert made artificial respiration after her fall and He did not calculate his strength, because he was drunk, the court considers not sound, since these arguments are refuted by the testimony of witness Kadyrov U.G. and case materials.
The actions of the defendant Pashina Yu.V. according to Part 1 of Article 245 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it should be qualified as cruel treatment of the animal, which resulted in his death, committed out of hooligan motives.
There are no circumstances mitigating the punishment in accordance with Article 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, or circumstances aggravating the punishment. Thus, when sentencing Pashinu Yu.V. the court takes into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crime, the identity of the perpetrator, the absence of circumstances mitigating and aggravating the punishment, as well as the effect of the punishment imposed on the correction of the convicted person, and considers it possible to appoint Pashina Yu.V. a fine The court does not find grounds for applying Article 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The verdict of the Ordzhonikidze district court of Ufa dated June 20, 2007 under part 2 of article 228 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the court considers it necessary to execute it independently.
Guided by Article 316 Code of Criminal Procedure, Justice of the peace

P R I D O V O R I L:

Pashina Yu.V. found guilty of an offense under Part 1 of Art. 245 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to a fine of 8,000 rubles in state revenue.
The verdict of the Ordzhonikidze district court of Ufa dated 06.06.2007 under part 2 of article 228 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation shall be executed independently.
A preventive measure - a written undertaking not to leave the place of residence and proper behavior - shall be canceled upon the entry into force of the sentence.
The verdict can be appealed or appealed appeal to the Oktyabrsky District Court. Ufa within 10 days from the date of declaration.

Justice of the peace E.A. Olenicheva

Source: https://39.bkr.mirsudrf.ru/modules.php?n ... ges & id = 291

 

[Адвокат]

Re: Sentencias judiciales por crueldad animal Art.245 del Código Penal

Caso No. 1-77 / 2010 de la Policía No. 10490354

FRASE
EN NOMBRE DE LA FEDERACIÓN RUSA

pueblo Tyazhinsky **. **. ****

Parcela de la corte de magistrados №2 Tyazhinsky distrito Kemerovo región Nikonovich Oh.The.,
con la participación del fiscal general, fiscal asistente principal del distrito de Tyazhinsky de la región de Kemerovo, Kirilova Oh.N.,
el acusado Donika Yu.N.
Abogado-abogado de la organización sin fines de lucro "Colegio del distrito de Tyazhinsky de la región de Kemerovo No. 61", L. Kokryatskaya, quien presentó el certificado No. 1000 del 23/11/2007. y orden núm. 244 de 11 de octubre de 2010,
cuando la secretaria Neikshina O.V.
examinó los materiales del caso penal en relación con:
Donika Yu.N. ****************************************
acusado de cometer un delito, según la Parte 1 del artículo. 245 del Código Penal,

en t y n sobre en y l:

Según los cuerpos de investigación, Donik Yu.N. es acusado de ser **. **. ****. aproximadamente *** horas, estando intoxicado, en un lugar público en la encrucijada ************************, en las inmediaciones del parque infantil , en presencia de niños pequeños, violando gravemente el orden público, las normas morales y morales de conducta, expresando una evidente falta de respeto hacia la sociedad, deliberadamente y dándose cuenta de la ilegalidad de sus acciones, sin razón y sin razón, con el objetivo de causar la muerte con particular crueldad, tomando al perro que le dieron por las patas traseras para su uso, la golpeó al menos cuatro veces con la cabeza en un poste de metal de una señal de tráfico, luego la arrastró a través de las patas traseras a través del camino hacia el edificio de Kuzbass Energy Network Company LLC, donde continuó golpeando al perro con sus patas traseras en una puerta y cerca de metal, golpeando cinco veces, causó la muerte de un perro, luego de lo cual abandonó al perro y desapareció de la escena del crimen.

Acciones Donika Yu.N. De acuerdo con la Parte 1 del Artículo 245 del Código Penal de la Federación Rusa, los organismos de investigación los calificaron como trato cruel a los animales, lo que condujo a su muerte, si este acto se cometió por motivos de gamberros, utilizando métodos sádicos, en presencia de menores.

El acusado Donik Yu.N. Estuvo de acuerdo con la acusación, confirmó su moción para ordenar una sentencia sin juicio.

El consentimiento del fiscal público para la consideración del caso de una manera especial está disponible.

El acusado Donik Yu.N. él es consciente de la naturaleza y las consecuencias de su solicitud, esta solicitud se declara voluntariamente, después de consultar con un abogado.

En tales circunstancias, el tribunal considera que es posible aplicar un procedimiento especial para la adopción de una decisión judicial de conformidad con el art. Arte. 314-316 Código de Procedimiento Penal.

El tribunal concluye que la acusación, con la que el acusado estuvo de acuerdo, está justificada, respaldada por la evidencia recopilada en el caso penal.

Acciones Donika Yu.N. tribunal califica para horas.1 Artículo. 245 del Código Penal, como trato cruel a los animales, lo que condujo a su muerte, si este acto se cometió por motivos de gamberros, utilizando métodos sádicos, en presencia de menores.

Determinar el tipo y la cantidad de castigo para el acusado Donik Yu.N., tribunal, sobre la base del artículo h.3. 60 del Código Penal de la Federación de Rusia tiene en cuenta la naturaleza y el grado de peligro público del delito, los datos que caracterizan la personalidad del acusado, incluidas las circunstancias que mitigan y agravan el castigo, así como el efecto del castigo impuesto sobre la corrección del condenado y las condiciones de vida de su familia.

La culpa emoliente Donika Yu.N. En las circunstancias, el tribunal tiene en cuenta la plena confesión de culpa por parte de los acusados, el arrepentimiento de sus hechos, dio testimonio veraz durante la investigación, lo que ayudó a establecer la verdad en el caso, no juzgamos legalmente, trabajo, positivamente caracterizado por el lugar de residencia.

El tribunal no discierne circunstancias agravantes.

Circunstancias excepcionales para la aplicación del art. 64 del Código Penal no está disponible, así como para la aplicación del Artículo 73 sobre la sentencia condicional.

Considerando las circunstancias anteriores en conjunto, el tribunal considera que el acusado será sentenciado a una multa.

Dado que el caso se está examinando en un procedimiento judicial especial, el castigo del acusado no debe exceder 2/3 del plazo máximo o la cantidad del castigo más severo provisto por este crimen.

El caso penal fue examinado en una decisión judicial especial, por lo tanto, de conformidad con la Parte 10 del art. 316 del Código de Procedimiento Penal de la Federación de Rusia, los costos procesales no pueden ser recuperados del acusado.

Guiado por el artículo Artículo 314-317 Código de Procedimiento Penal,

p r y g aproximadamente en aproximadamente r y l:

Reconocer a Donika Yu.N. culpable de un delito en virtud de la Parte 1 del Artículo 245 del Código Penal de la Federación de Rusia, y lo sentenció a esta ley en forma de una multa de 10,000 (diez mil) rublos.

La medida de coerción procesal en la forma de una obligación de comparecer ante Donik Yu.N. dejar sin cambios hasta que la oración entre en vigor.

No se ha presentado ninguna acción civil. No hay evidencia material. De conformidad con la cláusula 10, el artículo 316 del Código de Procedimiento Penal de la Federación de Rusia, Donika Yu.N. para eximir del pago de costos procesales por la participación de un abogado en litigios.

El veredicto no puede ser apelado por el incumplimiento de las conclusiones del tribunal con las circunstancias reales del caso, es decir. sobre la base del artículo. 379 p. 1 del Código de Procedimiento Penal de la Federación de Rusia, en otros casos se puede apelar en apelación ante el Tribunal de Distrito de Tyazhinskiy a través de un juez de paz dentro de los 10 días a partir de la fecha de su anuncio.

Juez de paz O.B. Nikonovich
La decisión entró en vigor el 15/11/2010

Fuente: https://3102.kmr.mirsudrf.ru/modules.php ... ges & id = 307