1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for the sale of narcotic substances, as well as the issue of the correctness of the sentence and the existence of incitement to commit a crime.<\/p>\n
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and dismissed the defense counsel’s appeal, motivating it as follows:
\n * The Court agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances that there was no incitement to commit a crime on the part of law enforcement agencies, since they already had information about the convict’s involvement in the sale of drugs, and his objections to the sale were related only to the absence of the narcotic substance and the payment procedure.
\n * The appellate court’s refusal to interrogate the witness did not affect the ability of the defense to substantiate its position, since the fact of purchasing drugs for further sale was not denied.
\n * The Court did not find grounds for applying an additional penalty in the form of confiscation of property, since the mercenary motive was not proven by the prosecution.
\n * The Court agreed with the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the incorrect application of Part 4 of Article 70 of the Criminal Code, since the court of first instance did not determine the final penalty for the combination of crimes, which is a violation of the imperative requirements of the law.
\n * The appellate court did not correct the error of the court of first instance and did not present its judgments regarding the arguments of the defense in this part, which is a violation of the requirements of Article 419 of the Criminal Procedure Code.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal, and also imposed a preventive measure in the form of detention for a term of 60 days.<\/p>\n