Of course, the artist is uncomfortable with the aggressive werewolf.

The Vilnius Regional Court has announced that R. Jankauskaitė, convicted of a negligent crime, is assigned 6 months of public works; during this time, the convict will have to work for free after 8 pm every month. in the public interest.

In addition, the convicted person must pay the minor victim 7 thousand euros in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, although he has asked for almost three times the amount of 20 thousand euros. EUR.

“The panel of judges has no doubts that the victim suffered severe physical pain, shock, discomfort and spiritual suffering as a result of the crime and its consequences, especially in view of his young age (he was a minor at the time of the crime). ), during which the opinion of those around him about his appearance is particularly important, ”said the three-judge panel chaired by Judge Eglė Gruodienė.

According to the court, almost four years have passed since the victim was injured, and he admitted that “the scars on his face after the injuries have become less pronounced and he is currently not receiving negative attention from those around him, they are not very sensitive ; He pointed out that time heals wounds and everything is slowly forgotten ”.

“R. Jankauskaitė committed the crime by criminal negligence, accidentally, due to insufficient responsibility, from her testimony given during the court hearing, it can be seen that she is raising two young children, she is an individual photographer with a business license, her income is variable, about 500 euros per month, she has land donated by her grandmother, she is assisted by her parents, a friend, her ex-spouse contributes to the maintenance of the children, which suggests that R. Jankauskait financiera’s financial situation is not very good “, – the court ruled that the victim and the prosecutor are obliged to pay non-pecuniary damages 20 thousand Eur – it is significantly excessive, this amount does not comply with the jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation in similar cases.

The verdict handed down by the Vilnius Regional Court entered into force immediately after its announcement, as the criminal case was being examined on appeal. The Vilnius City District Court, which had previously examined the case, acquitted R. Jankauskaitė of the charges, but neither the prosecution nor the victim nor their representatives agreed with the court’s legal assessment.

Depending on the case, the court determined that the disaster occurred in 2017. On October 30, around 11:40 a.m. M., In a Vilnius forest near Pažagiškių street, when a long-haired Russian breed dog was led on a leash without a muzzle, he could not keep it behind the leash, so the grower escaped and attacked a minor that passed, that puppy to his pug, he threw him to the ground, bit his shoulder and his face. Thus, the victim suffered puncture wounds on the right side of his face.

R. Jankauskaitė, who was prosecuted, admitted that the dog she was guiding had bitten the victim, but explained that she did not contemplate two aspects: that the dog could attack the victim and her dog and that she could not hold the victim. dog behind the leash. In addition, the young woman took comfort that the dog’s owners had not told her that the dog was angry with the victim’s dog, and while driving a long-haired Russian greyhound, she listened to the lecture through headphones.

“This dog is very strong, I couldn’t stop him with my weight, I tried to pull the dog about three times, but he kept attacking the victim,” the woman explained that growing up was much stronger physically than she was.

The court, after evaluating the testimony of the accused and the victim and taking into account the evidence gathered during the investigation and the trial, pointed out that “the fact that any dog ​​can attack any other person or animal is evident and does not require more interpretation. “

According to the judges, legal regulation also requires the careful behavior of animal keepers: the law stipulates that animal keepers must ensure that the animals they raise do not endanger the life, health or property of people or Other animals.

“The fact that R. Jankauskaitė was not aware of the dog’s reaction to other people or animals should have further strengthened his vigilance, which was also influenced by the fact that when he was guiding a foreign dog, he focused on listening. the conference via headphones, “The panel of judges chaired by Gruodienė emphasized that R. Jankauskaitė, as an adult with normal mental development, could and should have foreseen that the dog he was leading could attack the victim and his dog, regardless as to whether the dog’s owners told her that the dog was angry at the victim.

According to the judges, R. Jankauskaitė, having failed to properly assess that he could not restrain the dog on the leash, but took the initiative, behaved irresponsibly.

“The panel of judges decides that R. Jankauskaitė’s guilt due to a minor health disorder was manifested by negligence, criminal negligence,” the court stated in the indictment.

According to the judges, the scars on the victim’s face will not automatically disappear, nor will they be completely removed by surgical correction: “The scars on the victim’s face are irreparable, but this does not mean that the victim’s face is disfigured by such scars.. “

According to the judges of the criminal case, the appearance of the victim’s face has deteriorated, but the scars are not large and bright enough to make the face unaesthetic: the face is unpleasant because the scars are not repulsive, the scars do not cover a significant part of the face and do not make it asymmetrical, while as the distance increases, the scars become more and more integrated with other facial features and become more noticeable At first glance, only redness of the skin on the right cheek is noticeable. “