[ad_1]
The panel of judges of the Lithuanian Court of Appeal concluded that the district court had reasonably recognized that such an act of RS constituted a negligent violation of traffic regulations and sentenced him to six years and six months in prison (higher than the sentence average provided for in the Penal Code).
The defendant said that he pleaded guilty and sincerely repents, apologized to the victims, partially compensated the damage and asked the court to consider it a mitigating circumstance, but the court did not recognize it as extenuating, noting that the convicted person sought to justify his behavior , reduce their liability, the court reported. .
The panel of judges agreed that the sentence of six years and six months in prison imposed on the convicted person was duly individualized and that the circumstances relevant to the amount of the sentence had been correctly assessed. The Court of First Instance also rightly prohibited RS from exercising its right to drive road vehicles for three years, that is, imposing the maximum penalty in force at that time.
“The purpose of the sentence is to punish the perpetrator of a criminal offense, dissuade him from committing criminal offenses, deprive or restrict the ability of the convicted person to commit new criminal offenses, influence the perpetrators to comply with the law and not repeat offenses, to guarantee the application of the principle of justice “. panel of judges.
After the entry into force of this procedural decision of the Lithuanian Court of Appeal, the Republika Srpska will have to serve a real custodial sentence (the law stipulates that persons convicted of negligent crimes must serve their sentence in open colonies).
The panel of judges of the Lithuanian Court of Appeal agreed with the regional court’s conclusion that the owner and lessor of the vehicle driven by the convicted RS UAB Prime Leasing is also liable for the road accident and damages caused. According to the jury, the rental company UAB Prime Leasing did not comply with the obligation to act with caution and diligence, handed over the car to an intoxicated person, which caused a traffic accident in which people died and were injured.
«The lessor, in the development of the car rental business, by assigning the right to use and exploit vehicles to third parties, has not taken any measures to ensure that the prohibition of driving while intoxicated is complied with at the time of transfer . In addition, there are greater requirements for responsibility, diligence and diligence on the part of employers, so the mere fact that compliance with mandatory legal requirements imposes a certain economic burden cannot by itself exclude their civil liability, – the panel states of judges.
The Lithuanian Court of Appeal agreed with the findings of the court of first instance regarding the amount of monetary sums awarded to victims for non-pecuniary damage, as well as resolved the complaints regarding pecuniary damage awarded.
This decision of the Lithuanian Court of Appeal will enter into force on the day of its adoption and may be appealed on cassation to the Lithuanian Supreme Court within a period of three months.
It is strictly forbidden 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]
