[ad_1]
The evidence in the case confirms that the defendant MB from 2017. the second half of November until 2019. In mid-September he sent 93 files of pornographic content per person through social networks via mobile networks: 83 videos and 10 photos showing the genitals in an open and detailed way. You distributed pornographic content in this way.
The defendant admitted his guilt both during the investigation and in court, and sincerely regretted his actions. He explained that he was communicating with the priest through the chat application, noticed that he used to send files of pornographic content and, as a laugh, sent him files of this nature. Extenuating circumstance of the defendant – admitted to having committed a crime and regretted his wrongful actions.
In the criminal case, a request was received to release MB from criminal liability on bail. The court rejected this possibility because there is not one of the mandatory conditions for exemption from liability on bail: the person must have committed a crime for the first time. MB did not commit a crime for the first time. Defendant 2017 in the summer in Šiauliai, near the club, he disturbed the seriousness and order of society with his arrogant actions. In the summer of the same year, suspect MB signed a reconciliation protocol with the victim, stating that the suspect had fully admitted his guilt and apologized, and that the pre-trial investigation was terminated. The defendant must, within a year of committing a new intentional crime, in early August, the prosecution resumed the investigation and subsequently the two pre-trial investigations were merged.
In court, MB did not plead guilty to the violation of public order. He indicated that he was defending himself. The court found defendant MB to be inconsistent throughout the entire process: during the pre-trial investigation, he fully admitted guilt and denied it in court. The court criticizes the defendant’s explanations in court and treats them as an attempt to avoid imminent criminal liability. Furthermore, the evidence provided by the accused in court is not corroborated by other evidence in the case.
The mitigating circumstance of the responsibility of the defendant MB for violation of public order – compensated the victim for the damage caused. The aggravating factor was that the offender was under the influence of alcohol and that, in the judgment of the court, he influenced the commission of this act.
MB committed two crimes that fall into the category of misdemeanors. The accused has not been convicted before.
It is strictly prohibited to use the information published by DELFI on other websites, in the media or elsewhere, or to distribute our material in any way without consent, and if consent has been obtained, it is necessary to indicate DELFI as the source.
[ad_2]
