Sentencing list of circumstances mitigating criminal liability and punishment
By the verdict of the Terektinsky District Court of the West Kazakhstan region dated May 23, 2016, D., who had no previous criminal record, was sentenced under part 4 of Article 345 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code) to 5 years in prison with the deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle for a period of 7 years, while serving his sentence in a penal colony. 625,000 tenge were recovered from D. in favor of the representative of the victim K. for compensation of material damage and 1,000,000 tenge for compensation of moral damage, and a state fee in the amount of 7310.5 tenge was paid to the state revenue. Recovered from D.: - in favor of the representative of the victim, K., 670,000 tenge for compensation of material damage and 1,000,000 tenge for compensation of moral damage, to the state revenue, the state duty is 7760.5 tenge; - in favor of the representative of the victim, M., 645,000 tenge for compensation of material damage and 1,000,000 tenge for compensation of moral damage. damage, to the income of the state – a state fee in the amount of 7510.5 tenge; - in favor of the representative of the victim S. 1,360,335 tenge for compensation of material damage and 500,000 tenge for compensation of moral damage, to the state income – state duty in the amount of 14,664 tenge; - in favor of the representative of the victim Sh. 500,000 tenge for compensation of moral damage, to the state income – state duty in the amount of 1,060,5 tenge; - in for the benefit of the victim, M. 500,000 tenge as compensation for moral damage, to the state income – a state fee of 1,060.5 tenge; - in favor of the victim, J. 500,000 tenge as compensation for moral damage, and a state duty in the amount of 1,060.5 tenge is paid to the state income. By a decision of the Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the West Kazakhstan Regional Court dated July 4, 2016, the verdict was changed: the recognition of circumstances mitigating criminal liability and punishment in the case was excluded. The term of the main sentence imposed under part 4 of Article 345 of the Criminal Code was increased to 10 years in prison. By the verdict of the court, D. was found guilty of violating traffic rules while driving, which negligently caused the death of five victims.
The convicted D. petitioned the Chairman of the Supreme Court for a review of the judicial acts regarding the imposed punishment and a reduction in the term of imprisonment, applying the rules of paragraph 1 of part 2 of Article 55 of the Criminal Code due to the presence of circumstances mitigating his responsibility and punishment and the absence of aggravating circumstances. The convicted persons have attached to the petition notarized statements of the victims J., M., T., K., G., S., Sh. for compensation of The convicted D. petitioned the Chairman of the Supreme Court for a review of the judicial acts regarding the imposed punishment and a reduction in the term of imprisonment, applying the rules of paragraph 1 of part 2 of Article 55 of the Criminal Code due to the presence of circumstances mitigating his responsibility and punishment and the absence of aggravating circumstances. The convicted persons have attached to the petition notarized statements of the victims J., M., T., K., G., S., Sh. for compensation of D. material damage andterial damage and moral damage, resolutions on the termination of enforcement proceedings in connection with the applications received from K., M., T., Zh., G., resolutions on the return of enforcement documents in connection with the applications received from S. and Sh., a certificate from the Department of Internal Affairs of the West Kazakhstan Region on compensation to the state for penalties imposed by the court, a letter from the insurance company "Salem" about X's insurance payment. amounts in the amount of 4,242,000 tenge. In the submission of the Chairman of the Supreme Court, the grounds for the cassation review of the decision of the Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the West Kazakhstan Regional Court dated July 4, 2016 are indicated: violation of uniformity in the interpretation and application by the courts of the norms of law in relation to D. regarding the imposition of capital punishment. At the petition of the convict, the victims S. and Sh. objected to their disagreement with his arguments. The objection states that, although D. The amount of claims recovered by the court verdict has been reimbursed, they do not forgive him and believe that the admission of guilt and compensation for claims cannot be mitigating circumstances and grounds for canceling the decision of the court of appeal. In accordance with paragraph 18 of part 7 of Article 494 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the CPC), upon the proposal of the Chairman of the Supreme Court, the cassation instance, based on the materials available in the criminal case and additionally submitted by the parties, fully verifies the establishment of the factuIn accordance with paragraph 18 of part 7 of Article 494 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the CPC), upon the proposal of the Chairman of the Supreme Court, the cassation instance, based on the materials available in the criminal case and additionally submitted by the parties, fully verifies the establishment of the factual circumstances of the case and the application of the criminal law, compliance with the norms of the criminal procedure law during the proceedings, legality and validity of the verdict or the decision of the court of first instance, appeal, cassation instances. In accordance with paragraph 5 of part 1 of Article 485 of the CPC, the incorrect imposition of punishment is the basis for a cassation review of court verdicts and decisions that have entered into force. Convicted D. was found guilty by the court that on January 17, 2016, at about 3 p.m., driving a Volkswagen Haran motor vehicle, grossly violating paragraphs 9.1 and 10.1 of the Traffic Regulations of the Republic of Kazakhstan, he entered the oncoming traffic lane and collided with an oncoming Vaz-21713 138-21 car.
As a result of the collision of vehicles, K., D., S., T., N. died from their injuries, M., J., D., A. received various bodily injuries. The Chairman of the Supreme Court submitted a submission on the cassation review of judicial acts in this case on the basis of paragraph 3) of part 2 of Article 485 of the CPC in connection with a violation of uniformity in the interpretation and application of legal norms by the courts. The Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court considers that the court gave a proper assessment of the examined evidence in accordance with the requirements of Article 125 The Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court considers that the court gave a proper assessment of examined evidence in accordance with the ents of Article 125 of the CPC and came to the correct conclusion regarding the proven guilt of the convicted person. The guilt of convicted D. and the qualification of his actions under part 4 of Article 345 of the Criminal Code are not disputed by him. At the same time, when imposing the main punishment by the court of appeal, a violation of the norms of the criminal law was committed. So, by the court of first instance, when sentencing D. as circumstances mitigating his criminal responsibility and punishment, criminal prosecution for the first time for committing a crime of moderate severity, positive characteristics at the place of residence and work, and the presence of a dependent minor child were recognized. However, the court of appeal excluded from the verdict the recognition of circumstances mitigating criminal liability and punishment of the convicted person, arguing that they were not included in the list of mitigating circumstances listed in part ver, the court of appeal excluded from the verdict the recognition of circumstances mitigating criminal liability and punishment of the convicted person, arguing that they were not included in the list of mitigating circumstances listed in part 1 of Article 53 of the Criminal Code, and their recognition as such was not justified. Whereas the list of mitigating circumstances and liability is not exhaustive. Exclusion by the court of appeal of those recognized by the verdict of the court as mitigating responsibility, etc. The circumstances contradict the requirements of part 2 of Article 53 of The circumstances contradict the requirements of part 2 of Article 53 of the Criminal Code, according to which, when imposing punishment, circumstances not provided for in part one of this article may be considered mitigating. Based on the analysis of the case materials, the court correctly established and recognized the circumstances mitigating the punishment and responsibility of the convicted person. The law does not provide for any grounds prohibiting the recognition of circumstances that are not listed in part 1 of Article 53 of the Criminal Code as mitigating responsibility and punishment. Due to the absence of aggravatDue to the absence of aggravating circumstances, the application by the court of first instance of the rules provided for in paragraph 1 of part 2 of Article 55 of the Criminal Code and the imposition of a 5-year prison sentence with deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle for a period of 7 years, while serving the sentence in a penal
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
