Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the verdict and ruling regarding the imposition of punishment on a minor under Part 2 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code (minor bodily injuries that caused a short-term health disorder).
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which imposed a punishment on the minor in the form of community service for a term of 60 hours, despite the fact that the sanction of the article provides for a minimum term of 150 hours. The court noted that the provisions of Articles 99-102 of the Criminal Code, which regulate the punishment of minors, specify the general provisions on the imposition of punishment. Since these articles allow for the imposition of punishment below the minimum limit established by the sanction of the article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code, the additional application of Article 69 of the Criminal Code (which allows for the imposition of punishment below the minimum limit if there are mitigating circumstances) is not mandatory. The court emphasized that Articles 99-102 of the Criminal Code establish the amounts of punishments, within the limits of which they can be imposed in cases of committing a criminal offense by a minor, to whom punishment must be imposed regardless of the minimum amount of punishments provided for by the sanction of the article (sanction of the part of the article) of the Special Part of this Code, under which he was convicted, as well as regardless of whether there are grounds for applying the provisions of Article 69 of the Criminal Code. The court took into account the positive characteristics of the accused, sincere remorse, and minor age. The Joint Chamber departed from the previous conclusion regarding the application of Article 69 of the Criminal Code in similar legal relations, indicated in the постанові (ruling) of the Supreme Court of June 8, 2023 in case No. 311/2644/21.
3. The court left the verdict and ruling unchanged, and the prosecutor’s cassation appeal – dismissed.
