1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Cassation review of the legality of the appellate court judgment, which had revoked the exemption from serving a sentence for a person convicted of disseminating information about the location of Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) units (Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centers – TRSSC) in a Telegram community.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court of cassation instance confirmed that the dissemination of information regarding the locations of mobilization activities conducted by TRSSC personnel effectively constitutes obstruction of the lawful activities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
– The Supreme Court clarified that TRSSC are structural units of the AFU; therefore, actions aimed at disrupting their work fall under the signs of a crime against the foundations of national security.
– Regarding procedural violations complained of by the defense, the Court noted that the preparation of draft decisions prior to retiring to the deliberation room does not constitute a violation of the law, and a clerical error in the prosecutor’s surname does not affect the legality of the judgment.
– The Court also rejected the defense’s arguments concerning the bias of the appellate court, having established that the communication was appropriate and that the motion for recusal of the judge was considered in compliance with the procedure.
– The Court concluded that the actions of the convicted person, which were previously qualified under Part 2 of Article 114-2 of the Criminal Code (dissemination of information about the location of the AFU), are subject to reclassification under Part 1 of Article 114-1 of the Criminal Code (obstruction of the lawful activities of the AFU), since the essence of the act consisted precisely in creating obstacles to mobilization activities.
– Taking into account the positive characterization of the individual, the absence of prior convictions, and active assistance in solving the crime, the Court deemed it possible to re-apply the exemption from serving the sentence with probation to the convicted person.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, reclassified the actions of the convicted person under Part 1 of Article 114-1 of the Criminal Code, and sentenced him to 5 years of imprisonment with exemption from serving the sentence with a probation period of 3 years.
