[ad_1]
This case was examined by judges of the Klaipėda Municipal Chamber of the Klaipėda District Court. By criminal order, Nerijus P. was found guilty of attempting to destroy another person’s property in a universally dangerous way and causing physical pain to a person.
Hit the woman
The case established that Nerijus P. in 2021. on August 19, around 1 in the afternoon, intoxicated with alcohol, he deliberately threw a glass bottle of flammable liquid on the victim’s balcony and tried to set it on fire.
However, the crime did not end due to circumstances beyond their control, as the victim who noticed it resisted. During the conflict, Nerijus P. struck the victim with three blows to the head and caused him physical pain.
The defendant pleaded guilty and proved that he was drunk during the incident and poured diesel fuel into a glass bottle of vodka as he made his way towards the victim. He did so out of drunkenness and possibly jealousy that his spouse had returned to the victim at that time.
Seeing the victim on the balcony, he wanted to talk to her, he tried to go up to the balcony, but the woman pushed him. He admitted to hitting the victim three times in the head during the fight. Nerijus P. expressed his sincere regret for such conduct.
Cold nesuabejota
The court, after evaluating all the evidence gathered in the case, concluded that Nerijus P.’s guilt had been fully proven. In sentencing the defendants, the court took into account the fact that Nerijus P. was not convicted, committed an intentional misdemeanor against human health, and attempted to commit an intentional criminal offense within the category of serious crimes directed at property of another person, in addition to the fact that the crime the property did not cause pecuniary damage.
The court also took into account that an extenuating circumstance of the responsibility of a man and another aggravating circumstance established in the case, the fact that Nerijus P. is not married and works, has valid administrative sanctions.
Considering all the above, the court sentenced Nerijus P. to one year in prison for these crimes, forcing the husband to be home from 11 pm during the sentence. until 6 am if not related to work.
Since the criminal case was examined through the issuance of a judicial criminal order, and in the absence of a hearing, the sentence imposed on Nerijus P. was reduced from one third to eight months in prison.
A man who disagrees with the sentence imposed by a criminal court order has the right to request the court to hold a court hearing within fourteen days after receiving a copy of this document.
After examining the case and finding the defendant guilty, the court may impose a different type or amount of punishment than that imposed by the court’s criminal order.
If the defendant does not exercise this right, the criminal court order goes into effect and the final court criminal order is not appealed.
[ad_2]
