In the name of the Russian Federation
November 29, 2022 Bryansk
Sovetsky District Court of Bryansk, composed of presiding judge Alekseenko I.A., with the secretary of the court session Andrushchenko E.A., with the participation of:
State Prosecutor - Senior Assistant Prosecutor of the Sovetsky District of Bryansk V.V. Dyatlov,
defendant and civil defendant Pusev N.Yu.,
defender - lawyer S.A. Lavrov, who presented certificate No.... and warrant No.... dated, as well as the victim and civil plaintiff K.,
having considered in open court a criminal case against
Puseva N.Yu., data seized, convicted:
— July 25, 2016 by the Fokinsky District Court of Bryansk under paragraph “d”, part 2 of Article 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 3 years in prison, in accordance with Article 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, conditionally, with a probationary period of 1 year 6 months . By a resolution of the Fokinsky District Court of Bryansk dated October 13, 2016, the probationary period was extended by 1 month with the imposition of an additional obligation to attend a psychocorrectional class with a psychologist at the Fokinsky district branch of the Federal Institution of the Federal Penitentiary Institution of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia in the Bryansk region. By a resolution of the Fokinsky District Court of Bryansk dated June 5, 2017, the probationary period was extended by 1 month with the imposition of an additional obligation to seek advice from a narcologist and, if indicated, undergo a course of treatment for alcoholism. The punishment has not been served
accused of committing a crime under Part 2 of Article 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,
INSTALLED:
On May 21, 2022, at about 10:30 p.m. Pusev N.Yu., while intoxicated in a public place near an apartment building address , realizing that his actions are obvious to others, acting deliberately with the aim of damaging someone else’s property, without cause, grossly violating public order, out of hooligan motives, kicked the tailgate of a car of the brand “DAEWOO MATIZ”, registration plate No...., parked near the indicated house, owned by K., as a result of which a metal dent measuring about 50x60 mm, with a depth of about 2, was formed on the vehicle mm, with damage to the paintwork, and then kicked another blow to the glass of the tailgate of the specified car, breaking this glass with the formation of many fragments, thereby causing K. significant damage in the amount of 15,313 rubles 33 kopecks.
This criminal case was considered in a special judicial procedure at the request of the defendant Pusev N.Yu. declared after familiarization with the materials of the criminal case, voluntarily, after consultation with the defense lawyer, who explained to him the essence of the special procedure for the trial and its procedural consequences, due to the fact that Pusev N.Yu. I completely agree with the accusation brought against me.
At the court hearing, the defendant Pusev N.Yu. in the presence of a defense lawyer, he stated that he understood the charge, he completely agreed with it, supported the request for a sentence without a trial, stated this request voluntarily and after consultation with the defense, he was aware of the consequences of a sentence without a trial.
At the court hearing, defense attorney S.A. Lavrov, state prosecutor V.V. Dyatlov. and the victim K. also agreed with the defendant’s request and considered it possible to consider the criminal case in a special trial procedure.
The court was convinced that the defendant submitted a request for a special trial procedure voluntarily and after consultation with the defense lawyer, he is aware of the nature and consequences of his request, the charge, which the defendant agreed with, is justified and confirmed by evidence collected in the criminal case, that allows the court to satisfy the defendant’s request and make a judicial decision in a special manner.
Having assessed the information about the personality of the defendant examined at the court hearing, the conclusion of the expert commission No. 1671 dated October 19, 2017 based on the results of an outpatient forensic psychiatric examination, the adequate behavior of Pusev N.Yu. During the court hearing, the court makes a conclusion about the latter’s sanity both at the time of the commission of the crime and at the present time, and, consequently, his ability to bear criminal responsibility for the crime in full.
Actions of the defendant Pusev N.Yu. the court qualifies under Part 2 of Article 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as intentional damage to someone else’s property, when this act entailed causing significant damage, committed out of hooligan motives.
When assigning the type and amount of punishment, the court takes into account the following.
Pusev N.Yu. is not registered with a narcologist or a psychiatrist, the date was a one-time outpatient treatment and consultation with a psychiatrist, according to expert opinion No. 1671 of October 19, 2017, the data that occurred was confiscated and ended with recovery; during the period of Pusev’s crime, he suffered from some kind of mental disorder or did not suffer from dementia and is not currently suffering, could recognize the actual nature and social danger of his actions and manage them, and is not deprived of such ability at the present time. There is no need to use compulsory medical measures. There were no complaints against the defendant at his place of residence.
The court considers Pusev N.Yu.’s confession to the circumstances mitigating the defendant’s punishment. his guilt and remorse for his actions, the state of his health related to the data confiscated
At the same time, Pusev N.Yu., having an unexpunged and unexpunged criminal record by the verdict of the Fokinsky District Court of Bryansk dated July 25, 2016 for committing an intentional serious crime of mercenary nature, again committed an intentional crime against property, classified by law as medium severity during the probationary period assigned to him by the specified court verdict.
Taking into account the specific circumstances of the crime, the defendant’s explanations at the court hearing about the fact that the crime was due to alcohol intoxication, the court recognizes N.Yu. Pusev as an aggravating circumstance. he committed a crime while intoxicated due to alcohol consumption, since he comes to the conclusion that the state of alcoholic intoxication influenced the behavior of Pusev N.Yu. and contributed to the commission of the crime.
Taking into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crime committed, the factual circumstances of the crime and the personality of Pusev, including circumstances mitigating the defendant’s punishment, as well as taking into account the circumstance aggravating his punishment, the impact of the imposed punishment on his correction, the court comes to the conclusion that that the correction of the defendant can be achieved only by imposing a sentence of imprisonment for the crime in the conditions of his actual serving, since a more lenient punishment will not be able to achieve the objectives and goals of its application provided for by law, including, will not provide the goals of correction Puseva N.Yu. . and preventing the commission of new crimes. When determining the amount of this type of punishment, the court, in addition to the circumstances already indicated, takes into account the rules provided for in Part 5 of Article 62 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The court does not see any grounds provided for in Part 6 of Article 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for changing the category of the crime committed to a less serious one, taking into account the actual circumstances of its commission and the degree of public danger, as well as the presence of an aggravating circumstance.
Taking into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crime committed, as well as the crime according to the verdict of the Fokinsky District Court of Bryansk dated July 25, 2016, information about the identity of the defendant, who, according to information from the head of the branch in the Fokinsky district of Bryansk, FKU UII UFSIN of Russia in the Bryansk region during the probationary period, he established himself as a violator of the established procedure and conditions of serving the sentence imposed on him by the verdict of the Fokinsky District Court of Bryansk dated July 25, 2016, the court, by virtue of Part 4 of Article 74 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, comes to the conclusion that the suspended sentence was canceled under the indicated court verdict and the sentencing of Pusev according to the rules of Article 70 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, according to the totality of sentences, with the partial addition of the unserved sentence imposed on Pusev by the verdict of the Fokinsky District Court of Bryansk dated July 25, 2016.
By virtue of clause “b”, part 1 of article 58 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Pusev N.Yu. should be assigned to a general regime correctional colony. In order to ensure the execution of the sentence, taking into account the court's conclusions about the need to assign the defendant a sentence of imprisonment with its actual serving, the preventive measure against Pusev is subject to change from a written undertaking not to leave the place and proper behavior to detention.
Considering the claims of the victim K., recognized as a civil plaintiff in the case, for recovery in her favor from the defendant Pusev N.Yu. property damage from a crime in the amount of 15,313 rubles 33 kopecks, the court proceeds from the requirements of Article 44 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation that, within the framework of criminal proceedings, damage caused directly by the crime is subject to compensation and from the requirements of Part 1 of Article 1064 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, according to which damage damage caused to the property of a citizen is subject to compensation in full by the person who caused the damage. The defendant Pusev N.Yu., recognized as a civil defendant in the case, admitted the stated claims in full.
Since the property damage claimed by the victim was caused as a result of Pusev N.Yu. crimes, K.'s claims are subject to satisfaction in the amount of the stated claim.
The fate of material evidence is resolved by the court according to the rules of Part 3 of Art. 81 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.
Procedural costs in the amount of 1,100 rubles, payable to lawyer S.A. Lavrov. for the provision of legal assistance to the defendant during the trial by appointment of the court by virtue of Part 10 of Article 316 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation are subject to compensation from the federal budget.
Guided by Articles 304, 307, 308, 309, 316 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court
What is arson of someone else's property from the point of view of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation?
In accordance with the Criminal Code of Russia, the deliberate destruction or damage of someone else's property, committed by arson, is criminally punishable only if it caused significant damage to the victim.
The concept of “significant damage” is an estimate and depends on the financial situation of a particular citizen. But in any case, its amount for criminal liability cannot be less than 5,000 rubles.
That is, if the object of arson is, for example, a jacket worth 4,000 rubles, then such an act will be qualified under the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation
In practice, the targets of deliberate arson most often are residential buildings, country houses, outbuildings and cars. The most typical motive for this crime is revenge or the desire to intimidate the victim.
Responsibility for deliberate arson of someone else's property is established by Part 2 of Article 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Intentional and reckless arson: what is the difference?
Intentional destruction of someone else's property by arson and destruction of property due to careless handling of fire are fundamentally different acts, liability for which is provided for in different articles of the Criminal Code.
In accordance with Art. 168 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, careless handling of fire, resulting in fire and destruction of someone else’s property, entails liability only if damage is caused on a large scale. Currently it is 250 thousand rubles.
That is, if you accidentally burn down your neighbor’s bathhouse worth 50,000 rubles, then there will be no criminal liability for this. But if, as a result of careless handling of fire, a neighbor’s mansion worth several million burns down, then it is quite possible to find yourself under criminal charges for this.
A classic example of such a crime is the fire of neighbors’ residential and outbuildings while burning last year’s grass.
Arson of someone else's property, qualified under Article 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, is a crime that can only be committed intentionally, as a result of the targeted actions of an attacker.
You can ask any questions to a lawyer on the topic of the article right now online, with the help of the duty consultant on our website. It's free!
