[ad_1]
With Decision No. 140 / 11.24.2020 in criminal case No. 618/2020, a three-member panel of the Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC) modified the sentence under vnohd No. 143/2017 of the Specialized Criminal Court of Appeals (ASC) , reducing the penalties imposed on Kiril Rashkov: for the crime contemplated in art. 354, para. 1 of the Penal Code to 3 months of “imprisonment” and for the offense provided for in article 278, paragraph 6, article 2, paragraph 2 of the Penal Code, to 8 months of “imprisonment”.
It establishes a total sentence of 8 months in “prison”. It remains the rest of the sentence.
The decision is not subject to appeal.
The Supreme Court of Cassation received a notification from a prosecutor about the actions taken to enforce the sentences imposed by the court. The case began in the appeals of Kiril Rashkov
Kiril Rashkov was born on May 24, 1942 in the Stolipinovo district of Plovdiv. He is the youngest of, Simeon Iliev and Radoslav Petrov against the ASNS appeal verdict, which partially overturned the verdict of the Specialized Criminal Court.
The first instance verdict convicted: Radoslav Petrov – for possession for the purpose of distributing a high-risk narcotic substance (amphetamine) and its distribution, and was sentenced to “prison” for a period of 7 years and a “fine” of 50,000 BGN; Kirill Rashkov
Kiril Rashkov was born on May 24, 1942 in the Stolipinovo district of Plovdiv. He is the youngest of – for possession without a proper permit of a highly active poisonous substance (mercury) and for possession of archaeological sites that have not been identified and registered in the respective warrant, he has been sentenced to a total penalty of “imprisonment” for a period of 2 years and a “fine” of 10,000 BGN; Simeon Iliev – for possession of archaeological sites that have not been identified and registered in the respective order, he was sentenced to “prison” for a period of 1 year, suspended for a period of 3 years, Mihail Demerdzhiev – for acquisition, possession and distribution of a high-risk narcotic substance (amphetamine) and for possession of firearms without proper authorization, with a total of the most severe penalty of “imprisonment” for a period of 2 years, suspended for a period of 4 years, and “fine” in the amount of BGN 5000, writes plovdiv24.
The defendants were acquitted of some of the charges. The ACC’s appeal verdict overturned the first instance verdict in the part in which Simeon Iliev was acquitted of the charge of possession of a firearm without proper permission, and was instead found guilty and sentenced to further punishment. severe “prison”. 2 years, postponed for a period of 5 years. On Kiril Rashkov’s appeal
Kiril Rashkov was born on May 24, 1942 in the Stolipinovo district of Plovdiv. He is the youngest of Allegations were made of lack of evidence to prove that he was the author of the crimes for which he was convicted. The decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation reads: “The Specialized Criminal Court of Appeals has accepted as established indisputably the fact that it was the defendant Rashkov who had the real power over the two bottles containing mercury, and in support of his decision he stated detailed and convincing considerations “. and the complaints regarding the conviction for possession of archaeological sites, which have not been registered in the respective order.
According to the supreme judges, ASNS substantiated its conclusion on authorship in detail, referring to the fact that the archaeological sites were found in Rashkov’s house, in a safe located in his bedroom and opened with a key seized during his personal search. However, the three-member panel of the Supreme Court of Cassation accepted as justified the request to reduce the amount of sanctions imposed on Rashkov. The analysis of the circumstances related to the individualization of the sentence set out in the reasons for the ASC’s decision is meticulous and complete, but according to the cassation panel, the plaintiff’s state of health and his advanced age were not sufficiently taken into account.
The decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation reads: “Currently, the defendant Rashkov is almost 79 years old and suffers from serious and life-threatening diseases. There is abundant medical documentation in the case, which shows that he suffers from heart failure with two heart attacks, there is diabetes severe mellitus with insulin depletion, chronic kidney failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease do not correspond to his very serious state of health and it should be reduced … “.” prison “.
Regarding Radoslav Petrov’s appeal, the three-member panel of the Supreme Court of Cassation held that no violation of procedural rules had been committed in the formation of the decision-making court’s internal sentence, which would result in the annulment of the decision. judicial act. The decision contains a response to the objections due to the groundlessness of the first instance verdict, as well as to the complaint due to incorrect application of the law.
In their reasons, the Supreme Judges also wrote: “There is no doubt that the act committed by the defendant Petrov was committed under conditions of dangerous recidivism, as he was convicted by the Kingdom of Norway for an intentional felony imprisonment for a period three years and five months … “.
According to the Supreme Court of Cassation, after analyzing the circumstances related to the individualization of the sentence, the appeals court rightly accepted that it was determined the minimum provided by law and that no additional mitigation of criminal coercion is necessary. With regard to the allegations in Simeon Iliev’s appeal, the panel of judges of the Supreme Court of Cassation concluded that the ACC had not committed significant violations of the procedural rules. It carried out an analysis of the evidence gathered and based its factual conclusions on the basis of assessable evidence. The court made detailed considerations as to why it held that it was Iliev who had exercised de facto control over the pistol, ammunition and archaeological sites. No ambiguity was found in the accusation of possession of archaeological sites, which were not identified and registered in the respective order, as indicated in the appeal.
“The hint of the defense on unclear judicial grounds on the application of substantive law is also completely devoid of factual foundation”, the supreme judges are categorical.
[ad_2]
