Here is the detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for your request:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of exempting the convicted person from serving a custodial sentence with probation and the failure to impose the mandatory additional punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to engage in activities related to the circulation of narcotic drugs.
2. The Supreme Court pointed out that the appellate court failed to provide proper grounds for exempting the person from the actual service of the sentence, limiting itself only to a formal list of mitigating circumstances. The Court critically assessed the appellate court’s unfounded assertions regarding the alleged lack of harm to society and the “compelled” nature of the crimes committed due to pain. A key argument was the appellate court’s disregard for the legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court regarding the mandatory imposition of additional punishment. The Court emphasized that an additional punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to engage in a specific activity must be imposed regardless of whether the person was officially engaged in such activity at the time of the commission of the crime, thereby departing from the outdated clarifications of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine of 2003. The appellate court failed to verify the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the significant disparity between the gravity of the crimes and the leniency of the imposed sentence. Consequently, the decision of the appellate instance was found to be unreasoned and non-compliant with the requirements of the criminal procedural law.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
