{"id":5266,"date":"2025-02-13T09:45:35","date_gmt":"2025-02-13T07:45:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-162-401-21-dated-05-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-13T09:45:35","modified_gmt":"2025-02-13T07:45:35","slug":"case-no-162-401-21-dated-05-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-162-401-21-dated-05-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 162\/401\/21 dated 05\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Cassation Appeal of a Sentence Regarding a Person Who Committed Theft by Breaking into Premises and Threatened Police Officers during Detention.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court: First, the court recognized that a threat to police officers during the performance of their official duties is a completed crime, regardless of their recognition as victims. Second, the court for the first time changed the qualification of the person&#8217;s actions from theft to a criminal misdemeanor &#8211; unlawful entry into premises, which effectively mitigates the punishment. Third, the court thoroughly analyzed the evidence and recognized witness testimonies as credible.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: Leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied, but reclassify the person&#8217;s actions from Part 3, Article 15, Part 3, Article 185 of the Criminal Code to Part 1, Article 162 of the Criminal Code and impose a milder punishment.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125005683\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Cassation Appeal of a Sentence Regarding a Person Who Committed Theft by Breaking into Premises and Threatened Police Officers during Detention. Main Arguments of the Court: First, the court recognized that a threat to police officers during the performance of their official duties is a completed crime, regardless of their recognition as&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[57,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5266","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-court-practice-ukraine","category-eu-legislation-important","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5266","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5266"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5266\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5266"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5266"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5266"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}