Lawyer's Appeal on Extortion
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 a Lawyer/Lawyer by phone; +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (727) 971-78-58.
Judicial Board on criminal cases of the Almaty City Court
Lawyer.......... legal address:city of Almaty ........... Phone number 8 …………
acting in the interests of the convicted person .................... 02.09.1982 G.R.,
convicted under paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Article 194 of the Criminal
Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan to 3 years of imprisonment
THE APPEAL
on the verdict of the district court no.2 of the Bostandyk district of Almaty city dated 07/25/20.... of the year
By the verdict of the district court No. 2 of the Bostandyk district of Almaty dated 07/25/20... ................. He was found guilty of committing a crime under paragraph 2 of Part 2 of Article 194 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and was sentenced to 3 years in prison. We do not agree with the verdict of the court and believe that the conclusions of the court of the first instance do not correspond to the actual circumstances of the case and the actions of my client are subject to retraining. The said conviction is subject to change on the following grounds: My client was convicted under paragraph 1, part 2, Article 194 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "Extortion committed with the use of violence." However, neither during the pre-trial investigation nor during the judicial investigation was there any evidence that violence had been used against the victim.
In accordance with art.393 Part 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a guilty verdict cannot be based on assumptions and is decided only on condition that during the trial the defendant's guilt in committing a criminal offense is confirmed by the totality of evidence examined by the court. According to P. 6 of the Normative Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated June 23, 2006 No. 6 "On judicial practice in cases of extortion" "extortion with the use of violence should be understood as the commission of this crime involving restriction of freedom, infliction of physical pain, blows, beatings, causing mild or moderate harm to the victim's health." The court of the first instance admitted the one-sidedness and incompleteness of the judicial investigation, the inconsistency of the conclusions of the court set out in the verdict, the factual circumstances of the case, as well as the court incorrectly applied the criminal law. In accordance with paragraph 12 of the Normative Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated April 20, 2006 No. 4, with (as amended and supplemented on April 25, 2010) "On some issues of evaluating evidence in criminal cases", a court verdict cannot be recognized as lawful if it is made solely on the basis of testimony of the defendant or victim, which are not analyzed, compared for reliability and They are confirmed by other evidence: witness statements, protocols of procedural actions, expert opinions, physical evidence and other documents., kromesluchaev consideration of the case in an abbreviated manner provided for in Article 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan).
During the pre-trial investigation, the victim testified in a stressful state, but during the judicial investigation, the victim was confused when testifying and said that there was no violence against him, thereby retracting his testimony in full, given in the pre-trial investigation. Therefore, during the pre-trial investigation, __________________ I have fully compensated the material damage caused to the victim. Also, the court did not take into account such mitigating circumstances as voluntary compensation for damage caused by a crime, positive characteristics from the place of work, from the place of residence, as well as sincere recognition provided for in art. 53 of the CPC RK. On the basis of the above and in accordance with Articles 414, 423, 431, part 1, paragraph 2, Articles 433, 442UPK RK
ask:
The verdict of the Bostandyk district Court No. 2 of Almaty dated 07/25/20.. regarding ..... According to paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Article 194 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, it was changed to reclassify acts from paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Article 194 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan to part 1 of Article 194 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and impose punishment in the form of a minimum term of restriction of liberty.
Lawyer ……………
I am familiar with the defender's complaint and support it. ........ "_____" August 20...
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
