The term of repayment of a criminal record is calculated based on the sentence actually served, from the moment of his release.

By the verdict of the specialized interdistrict criminal Court of Aktobe region dated April 18, 2018: Zh., previously convicted: 1) on December 11, 2003, under part 1 of Article 120, to 4 years of imprisonment with the application of Article 63 of the Criminal Code, conditionally, with a probation period of 2 years; 2) on May 26, 2008, under paragraphs "a, d" of part 2 of Article 179, paragraphs "a, b, d" of part 2 of Article 179 of the Criminal Code to 5 years in prison, - sentenced under paragraph 3) of part 2 of Article 99 of the Criminal Code to 16 years in prison, paragraph 1), 3), 7) of part 2 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code to 8 years of imprisonment, paragraph 1), 3) of part 2 of Article 126 of the Criminal Code to 3 years of imprisonment, under part 1 of Article 188 of the Criminal Code to 1 year of imprisonment, under part 1 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code to 2 years of imprisonment. On the basis of part 4 of Article 58 of the Criminal Code, on the totality of criminal offenses, J. was finally appointed by partial addition of punishments. 18 years of imprisonment while serving a sentence in an institution of the penitentiary system of emergency security. According to paragraph 2) of part 2 of Article 14 of the Criminal Code in the actions of J. A dangerous recidivism has been recognized. By the Court of J. He was found guilty of kidnapping two persons by a group of persons by prior agreement, with the use of violence dangerous to their life and health; of unlawfully depriving the victims of liberty by a group of persons by prior agreement, with the use of violence dangerous to their life and health; of committing robbery, that is, open theft of someone else's property; of secretly stealing someone else's property; and also of murder, that is, the unlawful intentional infliction of death associated with kidnapping. B., A., and V. were convicted by the same verdict, but no petitions were filed against them. By the decision of the judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Aktobe Regional Court dated May 30, 2018, the verdict of the court remained unchanged.

 The term of repayment of a criminal record is calculated based on the sentence actually served, from the moment of his release.

The guilt of J. The commission of the alleged acts was fully confirmed by a set of reliable and admissible evidence, which was comprehensively examined by the court. The court's conclusion that Zh.'s guilt was proven is confirmed by his partial confessions, the testimony of other convicts, the protocols of the inspection of the accident sites, the stable testimony of the victims, the conclusions of forensic medical examinations on the presence and severity of injuries to A., G., the cause of death of M. and other objective evidence. Judicial authorities, assessing the testimony of victims A. and G., they were correctly recognized as reliable, not only because of their consistency, but also because they found objective confirmation by other evidence given in the verdict. The court has reliably established that J. He caught A. in the courtyard of the house, put him in the basement against his will, handcuffed him, and B. helped him. Then, together with A. and V., he moved the victim to the cottage, where, using physical force, they forced him to summon G. and M. in turn, who were also brought to the cottage. Unlawfully detaining all the victims, depriving them of their freedom, beating them, J. he took possession of their property, and subsequently committed the premeditated murder of M. The unity of intent of the convicts J., A. and V. is evidenced by the coordinated nature of their actions to kidnap and imprison the victims, awareness of each other's actions. The actions of the convicts are directly causally related to the criminal result resulting from the combined activities of each of them. In this regard, the court reasonably recognized the commission of Zh. episodes of abduction and imprisonment of victims by a group of persons by prior agreement. In such circumstances, the actions of J. they are correctly qualified under paragraph 3) of part 2 of Article 99, paragraphs 1), 3), 7) of part 2 of Article 125, paragraphs 1), 3) of part 2 of Article 126, part 1 of Article 188, part 1 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code. Punishment of J. It is appointed taking into account the nature and degree of public danger of the deed, the personality of the convicted person, the presence of circumstances mitigating and aggravating his responsibility and punishment, and the consequences that have occurred, and is fair. At the same time, the court allowed the incorrect application of the criminal law, which resulted in an incorrect definition of dangerous recidivism in the actions of convicted Zh., which led to an incorrect definition of the type of institution of the penal system where the convicted person should serve his sentence. Upon examination of the case file, it was established that J. He was previously convicted on December 11, 2003, under part 1 of Article 120 of the Criminal Code, to 4 years in prison with the application of Article 63 of the Criminal Code, conditionally, with a probation period of 2 years. On January 19, 2004, by a court decision, the application of article 63 of the Criminal Code was abolished, J. He was sent to places of imprisonment to serve his sentence. On October 31, 2005, he was released on parole for an unserved term of 2 years, 5 months, and 29 days. On May 26, 2008, J. He was sentenced under paragraphs "a, b, d" of part 2 of Article 179 of the Criminal Code to 5 years in prison with confiscation of property. He was released on June 2, 2011 on parole for an unserved term of 1 year, 9 months, and 8 days.

According to paragraph 4) of part 2 of Article 79 of the Criminal Code, the criminal record of persons sentenced to imprisonment for serious crimes is extinguished after six years after serving the sentence. As follows from the requirements of part 4 of Article 79 of the Criminal Code, if a convicted person has been released early from serving his sentence, then the repayment period of the criminal record is calculated based on the sentence actually served, from the moment of release. Thus, the repayment period of the criminal record is J. It should be considered June 2, 2017. The crime against A., G. and M. in the case under consideration is Zh. committed on August 8, 2017, that is, after the expiration date of the criminal record under the verdict of May 26, 2008. In this regard, the confession of the actions of J. dangerous recidivism of crimes is subject to cancellation, the place of serving his sentence must be determined in accordance with paragraph 3) of part 5 of Article 46 of the Criminal Code. Accordingly, the confession of Zh's actions is subject to exclusion from the sentence. dangerous recidivism of crimes as a circumstance aggravating his responsibility and punishment. The court did not establish any other circumstances aggravating criminal liability and punishment against Zh. The court recognized positive characteristics as mitigating circumstances.

In accordance with paragraphs 1), 3) of part 2 of Article 55 of the Criminal Code, in the presence of a mitigating circumstance that is not provided for as a sign of a committed crime, and in the absence of aggravating circumstances, the term and amount of the main type of punishment may not exceed half or three quarters of the maximum term or amount of punishment when committing a medium-gravity crime. Based on the above, the Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court changed the judicial acts of the local courts in relation to Zh. and she canceled the recognition of J.'s actions. dangerous recidivism of crimes. The recognition of dangerous recidivism as a circumstance aggravating criminal liability and punishment is excluded. The punishment imposed by J. according to paragraph 3) of part 2 of Article 99 of the Criminal Code, it was reduced to 15 years of imprisonment, according to paragraphs 1), 3) of part 2 of Article 126 of the Criminal Code to 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment. Regarding the imposition of punishment under paragraphs 1), 3), 7) of part 2 of Article 125, part 1 of Article 188, part 1 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code, judicial acts remained unchanged. On the basis of part 4 of Article 58 of the Criminal Code for the totality of crimes, J. was finally appointed by partial addition of punishments. 17 years of imprisonment. On the basis of paragraph 3) of part 5 of Article 46 of the Criminal Code, serving the sentence of J. It is defined in the institution of the maximum security penal system. The rest of the judicial acts remained unchanged. 

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