The term of repayment of a criminal record is calculated based on the term of punishment actually served, from the moment of release from serving the main and additional types of punishment.

According to part 4 of Article 79 of the Criminal Code, if a convicted person has been prematurely released from serving his sentence in accordance with the procedure established by law, the repayment period of the criminal record is calculated based on the sentence actually served, from the moment of release from serving the main and additional types of punishment by the Verdict of the Ili District Court of Almaty region dated April 1, 2015.: 1) on February 21, 2006, by the Karasai District Court of the Almaty region under paragraph "a" of part 2 of Article 178, paragraph "b" of part 2 of Article 120, paragraph "c" of part 2 of Article 104, part 3 of Article 58 of the Criminal Code to 6 years in prison, released on August 3, 2009 by the Kapshagai City Court on parole for an unserved term of 2 years, 4 months, 7 days; 2) on September 14, 2011 by the Ili District Court of the Almaty region under part 1 of Article 120, Articles 70, 60 of the Criminal Code – to 4 years in prison, released on May 4, 2012 by court order No. 2 of Ust-Kamenogorsk on April 13, 2012 under an amnesty, and sentenced to 8 years in prison under part 3 of Article 103 of the Criminal Code. On the basis of article 60 of the Criminal Code, 9 years of imprisonment were finally imposed on the total sentences by partially attaching the unserved sentence to the sentence of September 14, 2011, with the sentence being served in a high-security penal colony. The term of serving the sentence has been calculated since November 9, 2014. According to paragraph 1) of part 2 of Article 14 of the Criminal Code, a dangerous recidivism of crimes was recognized in S.'s actions.

The term of repayment of a criminal record is calculated based on the term of punishment actually served, from the moment of release from serving the main and additional types of punishment.

By the verdict of the court, S. was found guilty of intentionally causing serious harm to health, which negligently caused the death of the victim A. The case was not considered on appeal. After listening to the conclusion of Prosecutor N., who suggested changing the sentence in terms of recognizing a dangerous recidivism of crimes and applying Article 60 of the Criminal Code, having studied the materials of the criminal case and the arguments of the petition, the judicial board concluded that the sentence should be changed on the following grounds. Conclusions of the court on the guilt of S. The charges against him are based on the evidence examined at the court session and are not disputed by the convicted person in the petition. S.'s actions are correctly qualified under Part 3 of Article 103 of the Criminal Code. The punishment was imposed on the convicted person in accordance with Article 52 of the Criminal Code, taking into account the nature and public danger of the committed criminal offense, mitigating and aggravating circumstances of responsibility and punishment. At the same time, the arguments of the petition of the convicted S. the allegations of incorrect recognition of a dangerous recidivism in his actions and the imposition of punishment using Article 60 of the Criminal Code are justified. According to part 4 of Article 79 of the Criminal Code, if a convicted person has been prematurely released from serving his sentence in accordance with the procedure established by law, the term of repayment of the criminal record is calculated based on the term of punishment actually served, from the moment of release from serving the main and additional types of punishment. In accordance with part 8 of this article, if the convicted person has committed a crime again before the expiration of the term of repayment of the criminal record, the term of repayment of the criminal record is interrupted. The term of repayment of the criminal record for the first crime is calculated anew after the actual serving of the main and additional types of punishment for the last crime. In these cases, the person is considered to have been convicted of both crimes before the expiration date of the conviction for the most serious of them. It is established that With. He was first tried on February 21, 2006 under paragraph "a" of part 2 of Article 178, paragraph "b" of part 2 of Article 120, paragraph "c" of part 2 of Article 104, part 3 of Article 58 of the Criminal Code and was sentenced to 6 years in prison, then was released on August 3, 2009 on parole for unserved The term of 2 years, 4 months, and 7 days, the second time on September 14, 2011, under part 1 of Article 120, Articles 70, 60 of the Criminal Code, was sentenced to 4 years in prison and released from punishment on May 4, 2012 by court order No. 2 of Ust–Kamenogorsk dated April 13, 2012. In accordance with Article 11 of the Criminal Code, the first crime committed by S. the crime is classified as serious and the criminal record in accordance with Article 79 of the Criminal Code is extinguished after six years after serving the sentence, the second is classified as moderate, which, according to article 514 of the Criminal Code, does not constitute a relapse. The crime for which S. He was convicted on September 14, 2011, and committed while on parole, which interrupts the repayment of his criminal record under the sentence of February 21, 2006, which is calculated anew from the moment he actually served his sentence under the sentence of September 14, 2011, that is, from May 4, 2012. Thus, taking into account the fact that S. committed the crime under the second sentence on November 8, 2014, his actions, by virtue of part 1 of Article 14 of the Criminal Code, are considered a relapse of crimes, and not a dangerous relapse, as the court of first instance mistakenly recognized, since he, being a person sentenced to imprisonment for committing a serious crime., committed a serious crime.  In addition, by Decree of April 13, 2012, S. He was released from the custodial sentence imposed on September 14, 2011 on the basis of paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Amnesty in connection with the twentieth anniversary of the State Independence of the Republic of Kazakhstan" dated December 28, 2011. And the sentence of February 21, 2006, had already been served at the time of the commission of the crime in this case. Consequently, the court of first instance unreasonably applied the provisions of article 60 of the Criminal Code to S. Based on the above, the judicial board of the Supreme Court for Criminal Cases changed the verdict of the court of first instance against S. and, repealing the application of Article 60 of the Criminal Code, decided to consider him convicted under part 3 of Article 103 of the Criminal Code to 8 years in prison, serving his sentence in an institution of the maximum security penal system. On the basis of part 1 of Article 14 of the Criminal Code, a recidivism of crimes was recognized in S.'s actions. In the rest of the sentence, the sentence was left unchanged, the petition of the convict With. partially satisfied. 

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