Theft, secret theft of other people's property
District Court No. 2 of Bostandyk district Almaty, consisting of the presiding judge Selitsky R.V., with the participation of the state prosecutor – senior assistant prosecutor of the Bostandyk district of Almaty – Alieva A., the victim, the civil plaintiff – AI.A., the defendant, the civil defendant – TS.A., the defender – lawyer – Sarzhanova G.T., considered in open court, in an abbreviated manner, via videoconference "ZOOM", the criminal case in which: TSA, born on 04/08/1993, native of East Kazakhstan region, Kazakh, citizen of the Republic of Kazakhstan, secondary education, unmarried, does not work, lives at the address: Almaty, mkr. .., 40 .... street, previously convicted: 11/27/2019 under art. 188 Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan to 1 year and 6 months of restriction of freedom, received a copy of the indictment in a timely manner, has been under a preventive measure in the form of detention since 04/12/2021, was tried under art.188 Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Thus on 03/28/2021 about 14-00 hours, T.S.A. being at the address: Almaty ave. Al-Farabi, house ...., in the entrance number ... after making sure that no one was watching his actions, he secretly stole a black Sprick sports bike worth 100,000 tenge, after which he fled from the scene of the crime and disposed of the stolen goods at his discretion, causing damage to A.I.A. the amount of 100,000 tenge.
Theft, secret theft of other people's property
The defendant TS.A. pleaded guilty in full and testified to the court that on 03/28/2021 he arrived at a friend's house and, on his way home, saw a black Sprick bicycle in the entrance of the house, which he had stolen. After that, he sold this bike to an unknown person for 10,000 tenge, because he needed money for his father, who had a stroke. I am familiar with the case materials, and I have not disputed the relevance and admissibility of the evidence. He also did not dispute that the surveillance cameras in the entrance recorded him at the time of the abduction. I fully agreed with the amount of damage caused in the amount of 100,000 tenge. He asked for a minimum sentence without imprisonment. The victim, I.A., testified that indeed, from the entrance of the house where he lives at the address: Almaty, Al-Farabi Ave., house ..., a highway bicycle worth 100,000 tenge was stolen from him. He did not dispute the relevance and admissibility of the evidence. The damage was not compensated, and therefore he requested that the defendant be sentenced to imprisonment In accordance with the Regulatory Decree of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 17 dated November 26, 2004 "On the consideration of criminal cases by courts in an abbreviated manner", disclosure and examination of other evidence is not required, since they are not disputed by anyone and are recognized as reliable, relevant and permissible. In addition, art. 382 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, it is established that the court decides to consider the case in an abbreviated manner if the defendant admits guilt in full, including the claims brought against him, during the pre-trial proceedings there was no violation of the rules established by the CPC and infringing on the rights of participants in the process, the relevance and admissibility of evidence are not disputed, collected in the case, and they do not insist on their examination at the court session., in the case of accelerated pre-trial proceedings and the conclusion of a procedural agreement or agreement to achieve reconciliation through mediation.
Since the trial was conducted in an abbreviated manner, there was no disclosure of witness statements, disclosure and examination of the case materials. At the same time, in addition to the confessions of TS.A., the defendant's guilt is proved by the totality of evidence collected during the pre-trial investigation, namely, the protocol of inspection of the scene, the protocol of seizure dated 04/13/2021 of the disc with a video recording of the theft (l.d. 67-69), the protocol of the interrogation as a suspect by TS., who, in the presence of a lawyer, confessed to the circumstances of the crime committed (L.D. 81-86), and other materials of the criminal case. The evidence obtained during the pre-trial investigation and examined in court is consistent and detailed and does not raise doubts about its reliability, is sufficient, and confirms the defendant's guilt in committing a crime. Thus, the TSA committed theft, the secret theft of other people's property, that is, the crime provided for in art. 188 Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. In accordance with the Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated June 25, 2015 "On certain issues of criminal punishment" and Article 52 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, applying the principle of an individual approach to determining the term and amount of punishment, in order to impose a fair punishment on a person who has committed a crime, a punishment necessary and sufficient for his corrections and warnings of new crimes.
Theft, secret theft of other people's property
When imposing punishment, the nature and degree of public danger of the crime, the identity of the perpetrator, including his behavior before and after the commission of the crime, circumstances mitigating and aggravating responsibility and punishment, as well as the impact of the imposed punishment on the correction of the convicted person and on the living conditions of his family and dependents, are taken into account. When determining the type and amount of punishment of a defendant, the court takes into account the presence of mitigating circumstances in the form of an admission of guilt, remorse, as well as the absence of aggravating circumstances. At the same time, the court took into account the father's painful condition, that the damage had not been compensated, the victim's position on the imposition of a custodial sentence, the defendant's propensity to commit crimes, and therefore concluded that it was necessary to impose a custodial sentence, within the scope of the sanction of the article, taking into account the requirements of art. 55 The Criminal Code OF the Republic of Kazakhstan. According to part 1 of art. 60 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, if a convicted person has committed a new crime after sentencing, but before serving the sentence in full, the court shall fully or partially attach the unserved part of the sentence under the previous court verdict to the punishment imposed by the last court verdict. In accordance with paragraph 16 of the Normative Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated June 25, 2015 No. 4 "On certain issues of the appointment of criminal punishment", when imposing punishment on a set of sentences, courts must establish and indicate in the verdict the type and amount of the unserved part of the punishment for the previous sentence, since on the basis of Article 60 of the Criminal Code this punishment is subject to full or partial addition to the punishment imposed by the new sentence. The unserved part of the punishment under the previous sentence should be considered: if convicted to restriction of liberty, community service, correctional labor, or a fine, the unserved punishment as of the day of sentencing.
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
