[ad_1]
László Vizoviczki was legally sentenced to seven and a half years in prison for continued official bribery, misuse of classified information and other crimes by the Military Council of the Metropolitan Trial Panel on Monday.
The court said on its website that the Military Council of the Arbitration Tribunal upheld the ruling of the Military Council of the Metropolitan Court of First Instance on July 16 in a high-profile and strictly confidential proceeding on Friday, with minor legal clarifications.
The Military Council of First Instance sentenced László Vizoviczki, who became known as the lord of Budapest’s nightlife in the early 2010s, to a fine of HUF 108 million, in addition to the imposition of a prison sentence. for bribery of officials, misuse of classified information and other crimes.
In the case, 22 defendants were charged before the Central Investigation Office, according to the accusation, Vizoviczki and his men, in exchange for money, asked the officials not to carry out official actions in the discos linked to them, while they were in competition.Seven other defendants have pleaded guilty to suspended prison terms, property forfeiture and fines. Following the July verdict, the military prosecutor requested an increase in the length of the defendant’s imprisonment in the first degree and that the defendant and his defense attorney seek redress.
The panel ruled that the Military Council in the second instance “appealed the first instance verdict” to a certain extent, only against the sanctions imposed in the first instance, in the case of the first-degree defendant affected by the appeals, since the rights holders they only appealed.
They added that, therefore, the Court of Appeals could not hear the merits of the judgment in the first instance, basing its decision on the facts established by the Military Council in the first instance.
As the defendants pleaded guilty according to the facts and the qualification of the defendants, the review could not extend to the provisions on the establishment of guilt and legal qualification either.
However, the Court of Appeal examined ex officio whether the Court of First Instance had infringed the rules of procedure that could lead to the annulment of the judgment in its entirety, but did not consider this to be the case.
According to the panel court, the legal classification of the crimes in the prosecution should be corrected to the extent that, in the case of the first-degree defendant, the provisions of Law IV of 1978 in force at the time of the crime and “more favorable for him “(old Penal Code) had to be applied.
In addition to the facts and legal classification that govern the second instance proceedings, the panel concluded that the court had correctly identified and assessed the relevant factors for the imposition of the judgment.
It was written that the penalties of the accused are adequately adapted to the material gravity of the crimes charged, the degree of guilt, the dangerousness of the perpetrators for society and other mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The sanctions imposed by the court of first instance are necessary and at the same time sufficient to achieve the individual and general goals of crime prevention, so their aggravation or mitigation is not justified, the summary of the sentence table indicates.
[ad_2]
