Criminal complaint about Hooliganism
Attention! The Law and Law Law Company draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a specific situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in drafting any legal document that suits your situation. For more information, please contact lawyer Kenesbek Islam by phone.; +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (727) 971-78-58.
Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court
Lawyer of the Republic of Kazakhstan ........... legal address:
city of Almaty .......... Tel. 8 ............. acting in the interests of the convicted person
……..... 02.09.19.... G.R.,
convicted under Part 1 of Article 293 of the Criminal Code of the
Republic of Kazakhstan to 1 year of restriction of freedom
THE APPEAL
on the verdict of the district court no.2 Bostandyk districtAlmaty from 07/25/20.. year
By the verdict of the District Court no.2 of the Bostandyk district of Almaty dated 07/25/20....... convicted under art. 293 Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan to 1 year of restriction of freedom. I believe that the verdict should be overturned on the following grounds:
According to paragraph 6 of the Normative Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On judicial verdict", "a guilty verdict is issued if the court has indisputably established that a criminal offense has been committed, this criminal offense was committed by the defendant, he is guilty of its commission, his guilt is confirmed by evidence collected in compliance with the requirements of the law. At the same time, there should be no grounds for terminating the proceedings and no grounds for referring the case to the prosecutor provided for in article 323 of the CPC. A person's guilt in committing a criminal offense is recognized as proven only in cases where the court, guided by the presumption of innocence, examined all the evidence directly, interpreting all the irremediable doubts in favor of the defendant, and within the framework of due process of law gave answers to all the questions specified in Article 390 of the CPC."
It follows from the Disposition of Part 1 of Article 293 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan that Hooliganism is a particularly audacious violation of public order, expressing obvious disrespect for society, accompanied by the use of violence against citizens or the threat of its use, as well as the destruction or damage of other people's property, or the commission of obscene acts characterized by exceptional cynicism. In accordance with paragraph 2 of the Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 3 dated January 12, 2009 "On judicial practice in cases of hooliganism", "a distinctive feature indicating a greater degree of public danger of criminally punishable hooliganism compared to minor hooliganism is a special audacity to violate public order, expressing clear disrespect for society."
A particularly audacious violation of public order may be recognized as such a criminal violation of public order expressing obvious disrespect for society, which was accompanied by the use of violence against citizens or the threat of its use, the destruction or damage of other people's property, or the commission of obscene acts characterized by exceptional cynicism. Such actions can also include a prolonged and persistent violation of public order, disruption of a mass event, temporary cessation of normal activities of an enterprise, institution, organization or public transport. My client testified that he did not make any attempts to use violence against citizens or threaten to use it, and neither the court nor the investigation proved these actions. According to P. 2 of the Normative Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 3 dated 12.01.2009 "On judicial practice in cases of hooliganism", "the indictment and the verdict must necessarily reflect what specifically expressed a particularly audacious violation of public order and the indecency of hooliganism. It is unacceptable to indicate in the verdict qualifying signs of hooliganism that were not imputed to the person by the criminal prosecution authorities."
There will be no criminal offense in the fact that during a conflict with the victim in a public place, he only verbally insulted him. In this regard, we believe that my client's actions should have been qualified not under Article 293, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, but as minor hooliganism under Article 434 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. Based on the above, in accordance with Articles 414, 423, 431, 433 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan,
ask:
District Court verdict No.2 of the Bostandyk district of Almaty dated 07/25/20.. in respect of ....................., 02.09.19... G.R. to cancel and acquit the verdict.
Lawyer ............ "____" August 20.... years
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
