1. In case of aggregation of crimes, punishment is imposed separately for each crime committed.
2. If all crimes committed in aggregate are crimes of minor or medium gravity, or preparation for a grave or especially grave crime, or an attempt at a grave or especially grave crime, the final punishment is imposed by absorbing a less severe punishment with a more severe one, or by partial or full addition of imposed punishments. In this case, the final punishment cannot exceed more than half the maximum term or amount of punishment provided for the most serious crime committed.
3. If at least one of the crimes committed in aggregate is a grave or especially grave crime, then the final punishment is imposed by partial or complete addition of punishments. In this case, the final punishment in the form of imprisonment cannot exceed more than half the maximum term of punishment in the form of imprisonment provided for the most serious crime committed.
4. In the case of a combination of crimes, additional types of punishment may be added to the main types of punishment. The final additional punishment in case of partial or complete addition of punishments cannot exceed the maximum term or amount provided for this type of punishment by the General Part of this Code.
5. According to the same rules, punishment is imposed if, after the court has rendered a verdict in the case, it is established that the convicted person is also guilty of another crime that he committed before the court’s verdict in the first case. In this case, the final punishment includes the sentence served under the first court verdict.
Commentary to Art. 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. Issues of the practice of sentencing for a set of crimes are explained in the Post. Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated December 22, 2015 N 58 (clauses 7, 44, 50 - 55, 57, 60).
In Post. The Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated November 29, 2016 N 55 explains the features of the operative part of a conviction in terms of sentencing for a set of crimes (paragraphs 34, 35).
2. The commented article in connection with the provisions of Art. 17 of the Criminal Code is intended to ensure the principle of fairness in the application of criminal law, according to which punishment and other measures of a criminal legal nature applied to a person who has committed a crime must correspond, in particular, to the nature and degree of public danger of the crime (Part 1 of Article 6 Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Ensuring such compliance in cases where a person has committed acts that differ in the object of the attack, the objective and subjective side, thereby forming crimes provided for in various articles of the criminal law, is achieved, inter alia, by qualifying the act and imposing punishment for the totality of crimes.
3. The provisions of the commented article, which regulate the imposition of punishment for a set of crimes, do not allow double punishment for the same crime. ——————————— See: Def. Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of September 23, 2010 N 1216-О-О “On the refusal to accept for consideration the complaint of citizen Fedor Fedorovich Agienko about the violation of his constitutional rights by part two of Article 17 and part three of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation”; dated 02/16/2012 N 370-О-О “On the refusal to accept for consideration the complaint of citizen Roman Vasilyevich Kirichek about the violation of his constitutional rights by articles 69, 70, 73 and 74 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.”
4. The commented article establishes a certain sequence of sentencing for a set of crimes. First, it is necessary to assign punishment for each crime included in the totality, in compliance with both general and special rules for assigning punishment. After this, the final punishment for the totality of crimes is assigned.
At the same time, the operative part of the sentence must indicate the type and amount of the main and additional punishments imposed separately for each crime and the final punishment for the totality of crimes.
When assigning the final punishment for a set of crimes, two principles are applied: the absorption of a less severe punishment by a more severe one and the addition (full or partial) of punishments. Within the meaning of the law, these principles apply to both primary and additional penalties.
When determining punishment for a combination of three or more crimes, the court has the right to simultaneously add up some in whole or in part and absorb other penalties imposed for individual crimes (for example, add in whole or in part punishments in the form of imprisonment and absorb correctional labor or a fine).
Within the meaning of the law, when assigning punishment for a set of crimes, the court has the right to apply different principles to assign the final main and additional types of punishment, which must be motivated in the verdict. If the court applies one principle, it must be observed when imposing the final punishment, both primary and additional. Thus, the court, recognizing the need to apply the principle of partial addition of punishments for a set of crimes on the basis of Part 3 of the commented article, contrary to this, completely added up the additional punishments imposed on the convicted person in the form of restriction of freedom. ——————————— See: Review of judicial practice of the RF Armed Forces for January - July 2014, approved. By the Presidium of the RF Armed Forces 09/01/2014 // BVS RF. 2014. N 11.
5. The principle of addition of punishments is universal and can be applied in all cases of sentencing for a combination of crimes. However, its use has its own characteristics.
If punishment is imposed for crimes of minor or medium gravity, or preparation for a grave or especially grave crime, or an attempt to commit a grave or especially grave crime, the final punishment cannot exceed more than half the maximum term or amount of punishment provided for the most serious of the crimes committed. This rule (the so-called “one and a half sanction” rule) applies to all types of punishments. For example, if a person is convicted of a crime under Part 2 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code (the most severe punishment is five years in prison), and for a crime under Part 2 of Art. 159.2 of the Criminal Code (the most severe punishment is four years of imprisonment), then the final punishment should not exceed seven years and six months (5 + 5: 2 (2.5) = 7.5).
If at least one of the crimes committed in aggregate is a grave or especially grave crime, then the final punishment in the form of imprisonment alone cannot exceed more than half the maximum sentence provided for the most serious of the crimes committed. At the same time, the application of this rule must take into account the general restrictions established in Parts 4 and 5 of Art. 56 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, according to which the maximum punishment for a set of crimes cannot exceed 25 years of imprisonment, however, if at least one of the crimes provided for in Art. Art. 205 - 205.5, part 3 and 4 art. 206, part 4 art. 211, art. Art. 277 - 279, 353, 356 - 358 and 360 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in case of partial or complete addition of terms of imprisonment when imposing punishment for a set of crimes, the maximum term of imprisonment cannot be more than 30 years. So, in the case of committing several crimes provided for in Part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the final punishment cannot exceed 25 years, and if crimes under Art. 205 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, then the maximum final punishment will be 30 years.
Based on the provisions of Part 3 of the commented article, the “one and a half sanction” rule does not apply if a punishment not related to imprisonment is finally imposed, such a punishment should not exceed the maximum limit provided for by the relevant provisions of the articles of the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
6. The principle of absorption of a less severe punishment by a more severe one is applied if all crimes committed in aggregate are crimes of minor or medium gravity, or preparation for a grave or especially grave crime, or an attempt to commit a grave or especially grave crime. The final punishment is imposed by absorbing a less severe punishment into a more severe one. When determining a less severe punishment, one should take into account the hierarchy of types of punishment provided for in Art. 44 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
7. If a person has committed several unfinished crimes, then for each of them a punishment is imposed in accordance with Art. 66 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Punishment for a combination of crimes cannot exceed more than half the maximum term or amount of punishment that can be imposed according to the specified rules for the most serious of the committed unfinished crimes. For example, a person is convicted under Part 3 of Art. 30, paragraph “c”, part 2, art. 158 of the Criminal Code and part 3 of Art. 30, paragraph “a”, part 3, art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, while the final sentence for the totality of these crimes cannot exceed six years and nine months of imprisonment (3/4 of six years is four years and six months, of which 1/2 is two years and three months).
8. If a person commits several crimes, for each of which a punishment is imposed using the provisions of Art. Art. 62 or 65 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the term or amount of punishment for a set of crimes cannot exceed more than half the maximum term or amount of punishment that can be assigned for the most serious of the crimes committed without taking into account the rules established by these articles. At the same time, in order to ensure the principle of justice when imposing the final punishment, the courts must take into account that for each of the crimes committed, the punishment was imposed taking into account the rules of Art. Art. 62 or 65 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
9. If a person is convicted of several crimes, some of which were committed as a minor, and others as an adult, it must be borne in mind that for crimes committed as a minor, punishment must be imposed within the limits established by Art. 88 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and for crimes committed at the age of majority - within the limits of the sanctions established for the relevant crimes. In this case, when assigning the final punishment, the rules for assigning punishment for the totality of crimes are applied (Article 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). For example, if a person committed a murder under Part 1 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, while a minor, and robbery under Part 1 of Art. 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - at the age of majority, then in this case the final punishment for the totality of crimes cannot exceed 15 years (10 + 10: 2 (5) = 15).
In addition, when assigning punishment for a combination of crimes to convicted minors, it is necessary to take into account the provisions of Part 6 of Art. 88 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which relate not only to punishment for an individual crime, but also to the final punishment for a set of crimes. For example, juvenile convicts who committed serious crimes under the age of 16 cannot be sentenced to more than six years of imprisonment, either for an individual crime or for their totality. ——————————— See: Post. Judicial Collegium of the RF Armed Forces N 142-P11PR // BVS RF. 2011. N 12.
10. Additional punishment cannot be determined for a set of crimes if it is not assigned for any of the crimes included in the set.
In the event that for two or more crimes, along with the main punishment, the same type of additional punishment is imposed, its final term or amount in case of partial or complete addition of punishments cannot exceed the maximum term or amount provided for this type of punishment by the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation . If, for various crimes included in the aggregate, the court imposed different types of additional punishment, then they, along with the corresponding amounts and terms, must be indicated in the verdict and when assigning the final punishment for the aggregate of crimes.
The term or amount of additional punishment imposed based on the totality of sentences also cannot exceed the maximum term or amount provided for by the relevant article of the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
11. When assigning punishment for a set of crimes, there are features in relation to certain types of punishment (see commentary to Articles 46, 47, 49, 50, 53).
12. When deciding on the imposition of punishment in accordance with Part 5 of the commented article on a person who has committed another crime before the verdict in the first case, the court applies the general rules for imposing punishment for a set of crimes. In this case, the final punishment, imposed by partial or complete addition, must be more severe than the most severe of the punishments imposed for the crimes included in the totality.
According to the meaning of the law, when imposing a punishment according to the rules of Part 5 of the commented article, what matters is not the moment the previous sentence entered into legal force, but the time of its pronouncement, therefore the rules of Part 5 of Art. 69 of the Criminal Code are also applied in the case when, at the time of rendering the verdict in the case under consideration, the first verdict has not entered into legal force.
13. The term of serving the final sentence in the form of imprisonment, imposed according to the rules of part 5 of the commented article, is calculated from the date of the last sentence.
In this case, the time of preliminary detention in the last case as a preventive measure or detention is counted, as well as the time spent under house arrest in this case or in a medical organization providing medical care in an inpatient setting, or in a medical organization providing psychiatric care. in stationary conditions.
In this case, the term of the final punishment must, in addition, include the punishment served in whole or in part under the first sentence. ——————————— See: Def. Judicial Collegium of the RF Armed Forces N 41-APU14-30 // BVS RF. 2015. N 6.
If, according to the first sentence, the imposed punishment was replaced by a more severe type of punishment, then the final punishment must include both the originally imposed punishment served before it was replaced by a more severe type of punishment, and the served punishment of a more severe type.
When assigning a final punishment according to the rules of Part 5 of the commented article, the time spent in custody of the convicted person not only for the last, but also for the first sentence is counted towards the term of serving the sentence in prison. ——————————— See: Def. Judicial Collegium of the RF Armed Forces No. 8-O10-28 // BVS RF. 2011. N 2.
14. If it is established in the case that the convicted person is also guilty of other crimes, some of which were committed before and others after the first verdict, then the punishment for the second verdict is first imposed on the totality of crimes committed before the first verdict, after that - according to the rules of part 5 of the commented article, then according to the totality of crimes committed after the first verdict. The final punishment is imposed according to the rules of Art. 70 of the Criminal Code by partially or fully joining to the punishment imposed for the totality of crimes committed after the first sentence was passed, the unserved part of the punishment imposed according to the rules of Part 5 of Art. 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
In cases where it is established in relation to a conditionally convicted person that he is also guilty of another crime committed before the verdict in the first case, the rules of Part 5 of the commented article cannot be applied, since Art. 74 of the Criminal Code provides an exhaustive list of circumstances on the basis of which a suspended sentence can be revoked. In such cases, the sentences in the first and second cases are executed independently.
If some crimes were committed before, and others after, the first verdict, according to which the convicted person was sentenced using Art. 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, then the court should first impose punishment for the totality of crimes committed after the first verdict, if there are grounds provided for in Art. 74 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, cancel the suspended sentence and impose punishment according to the totality of sentences (Article 70 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), then according to the totality of crimes committed before the first sentence was passed, and assign the final punishment according to the rules of Part 5 of the commented article.
15. Courts of the first, appellate and cassation instances have the right to reclassify a criminal act from one article to several other articles or parts of articles of the criminal law, providing for liability for less serious crimes, if this does not worsen the position of the convicted person and does not violate his right to defense. In this case, the punishment imposed for the totality of crimes cannot be more severe than the maximum punishment provided for by the sanction of the article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation under which the act was classified in the indictment, indictment, indictment.
The court of appeal or cassation, instead of the rules applied by the verdict for the absorption of punishments imposed for a set of crimes, has the right to apply the rules for their addition in cases where these courts commute the punishment for one or more crimes. In this case, the punishment should not exceed the amount of punishment imposed by the sentence, taking into account changes made to it by subsequent courts.
Courts of appeal or cassation, having mitigated punishments for acts included in the totality of crimes, must also soften the final punishment imposed for the totality of crimes. ——————————— See: Review of the practice of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the RF Armed Forces for the first half of 2014 (approved by the Presidium of the RF Armed Forces on 07/02/2014) // BVS RF. 2014. N 10.
If, after the verdict comes into force, a criminal law is adopted that mitigates punishment for crimes included in the aggregate, the courts must first mitigate the punishments for individual crimes, then mitigate the final punishment. ——————————— See: Review of judicial practice of the RF Armed Forces for the third quarter of 2013 (approved by the Presidium of the RF Armed Forces on 02/05/2015) // BVS RF. 2014. N 5.
Everything about criminal cases
Go to the Criminal Code
Url Additional information:
Punishment by aggregate
- Part 1 69 of the Criminal Code
in the aggregate, punishment separately for each crime
I). Absorption
- Part 2 69 Criminal Code
a list of situations when the more strict absorbs the less strict:
- Part 2 69 Criminal Code
absorption - if the end result is of small to moderate severity
- Part 2 69 Criminal Code
absorption - if preparation for heavy, especially grave
- Part 2 69 Criminal Code
absorption - if the attempt is serious, especially serious
- Part 2 69 Criminal Code
final punishment, maximum 150% for the most serious
II). Partial addition
- Part 3 69 Criminal Code
severe, especially severe - there may be partial addition
III). Complete addition
- Part 3 69 Criminal Code
heavy, especially heavy - may be full addition
Maximum limit
- Part 3 69 Criminal Code
final term, maximum 150% of the term for the most serious
Additional penalties
- Part 4 69 Criminal Code
addition of additional punishments not exceeding the limit of this type
After the verdict
- Part 5 69 Criminal Code
if after the verdict another crime is established
PLENAMA OF THE Supreme Court
- paragraph 50
Plenum No. 58 punishment based on the totality of crimes and sentences
- paragraph 33
Plenum No. 55 requirements for a sentence in case of aggregation of crimes
— clause 6
Plenum No. 9, the purpose of prison for a combination of crimes
Punishment in aggregate
Three mechanisms
penalties: absorption, partial addition, full addition
SITUATIONS from practice
Punishment for several
episodes, how exactly it develops
Article 69 of the Criminal Code. Assignment of punishment for a set of crimes
Url Additional information:
- Part 1 17 Criminal Code
in the aggregate, liability for each (
Part 1 69 of the Criminal Code
)
- paragraph 34
Plenum No. 55 specification of punishments for certain crimes
1) In case of aggregation of crimes, punishment is assigned separately for each crime committed.
Url Additional information:
Absorption
Absorption of punishments
, the more strict absorbs the less strict (
Part 2 69 of the Criminal Code
)
2) The final punishment is imposed
by absorbing a less severe punishment with a more severe one (or by partial or complete addition of the imposed punishments), if all crimes committed in aggregate are crimes of:
- minor or medium gravity,
— preparation for something serious or especially difficult,
— attempted grave or especially grave crime.
In this case, the final punishment cannot exceed more than half the maximum term or amount of punishment provided for the most serious crime committed.
3) If at least one of the crimes committed
in aggregate is grave or especially grave, then the final punishment is imposed by:
Url Additional information:
Partial addition
Partial addition
, part of the punishment is “eaten” (
Part 3 69 of the Criminal Code
)
—
partial addition of punishments.
Url Additional information:
Complete addition
Complete addition
, strictly according to the rules of arithmetic (
Part 3 69 of the Criminal Code
)
- or
complete addition of punishments.
Url Additional information:
- paragraph 16
Plenum No. 29 multi-episode on theft, robbery, robbery not higher than 1/2
Limitation
Maximum limit
punishment, the most severe and 50% of it
In this case, the final punishment in the form of imprisonment
cannot exceed more than half the maximum term of punishment in the form of imprisonment provided for the most serious crime committed.
Url Additional information:
- paragraph 60
Plenum No. 58 main and additional punishment in combination
additional types
of punishment may be added to the main types of punishment . The final additional punishment in case of partial or complete addition of punishments cannot exceed the maximum term or amount provided for this type of punishment by the General Part of the Criminal Code.
Url Additional information:
- paragraph 53
Plenum No. 58 punishment in the case provided for
in Part 5 69 of the Criminal Code
- clause 44
Plenum No. 58 if there is no relapse before the verdict is passed
5) According to the same rules, punishment is imposed if, after the court has rendered a verdict in the case, it is established that the convicted person is also guilty of another crime committed by him before the
court’s verdict in the first case.
Url Additional information:
- paragraph 35
Plenum No. 55 credit for the time served for the first sentence
- paragraph 22
Plenum No. 21 question on the offset of the term in the execution of the sentence
In this case, the final punishment includes the sentence served under the first court verdict.
Return to the Criminal Code
Seek advice
Judicial practice: sentences and punishment under Art. 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
- Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases, appeal:... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Case No. 72-APU 17-21 APPEAL DECISION Moscow October 04, 2022 Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases...
- Decision of the Supreme Court: Determination No. 38-АПУ17-2 dated... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION No. 38-АПУ17-2 APPEAL DECISION Moscow March 1, 2022 Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court...
- Decision of the Supreme Court: Determination No. 72-АПУ17-1 dated... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Case No. 72-АПУ17-1 APPEAL DECISION Moscow February 2, 2022 Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases...
- Appeal ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION APPEAL DECISION dated October 3, 2022 N 4-APU18-32SP Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court...
- Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium on... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION APPEAL DECISION dated July 10, 2022 N 88-APU18-4 Judicial Collegium on criminal cases of the Supreme Court...
- Decision of the Supreme Court: Determination No. 34-UDP17-1 dated... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Case No. 34-UDP 17-1 DECISION OF THE COURT C A S S A T I O N N O...
- Decision of the Supreme Court: Determination No. 75-АПУ16-2 dated... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Case No. 75-АПУ 16-2 APPEAL DECISION Moscow May 24, 2016 Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases...
- Decision of the Supreme Court: Determination N 11-D13-35 dated... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Case 11-D13-35 SUPERVISORY DECISION Moscow October 24, 201 3 Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme...
- Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PLENARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION dated December 27, 2002 N 29 ON JUDICIAL PRACTICE IN CASES OF THEFT,...
- Decision of the Supreme Court: Determination N 203-APU17-21... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Case No. 203-APU17-21 APPEAL DECISION Moscow August 31, 2022 Judicial Collegium for Military Personnel of the Supreme...
sentence part 1 art. 111, part 5 art. 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Case No. 1-43/2012
VERDICT In the name of the Russian Federation, Osa March 12, 2012
Judge of the Osinsky District Court of the Perm Territory Korobeinikov S.A., with secretary U., with the participation of prosecutor Akbaev R.K., defendant B., defense attorney Golovkova E.Yu., who presented certificate No. and warrant No., as well as victim P., Having examined the materials of the criminal case in the premises of the Osinsky District Court in relation to:
B., date of birth, native of <address>, citizen of the Russian Federation, single, residing at: <address> registered at: <address>, not working, liable for military service, convicted: date by the Osinsky District Court under clause “g” » part 2 art. 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 2 years of suspended imprisonment with a probationary period of 2 years;
date of the Osinsky District Court under Art. 4.1. 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph “d”, part 2 of Art. 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, part 3 of article 69, part 5 of article 74, article 70 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 3 years and 2 months of imprisonment with serving the sentence in a correctional colony. Released on parole for unserved term of 2 years 11 days;
date of the magistrate of the court district No. Osinsky municipal district <address> under Part 1 of Art. 112 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 1 year 4 months of suspended imprisonment with a probationary period of 2 years;
date of conviction by the Osinsky District Court <address> under Art. 161 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 1 year 6 months of imprisonment. By virtue of Art. 79, part 7, paragraph “b” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, parole was cancelled, based on the sentence dated and by virtue of part 4 of Art. 74 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the suspended sentence was canceled on the verdict dated, by virtue of Art. 70 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, finally 3 years of imprisonment, with serving in a general regime correctional colony, serving the sentence,
accused of committing a crime under Art. 318 part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,
INSTALLED:
date, about 01 o'clock, on the site near the club <address>, located at the address: <address>, B., while intoxicated, took part in a fight, disturbing public order, used obscene language, committed an administrative offense under Part 2 Art. 20.1, Art. 20.21 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. District police commissioner P., while on duty, in order to suppress B.’s illegal actions and further bring B. to administrative responsibility, approached him and demanded that he stop committing an administrative offense and follow him into his official car. In response to the legitimate demands of government representative P., B., with the intent to use violence against the local police commissioner of the UUP and PDN department of the Moscow Region
Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia “Osinsky” P., realizing that P. was in uniform while performing his official duties, deliberately struck him with his hand in the face area, causing P. physical pain and bruising in the cheekbone area on the left. This bodily injury did not result in health problems and is not classified as harm to health.
The defendant admitted his guilt in full, and they are petitioning for the case to be considered in a special manner. This petition was granted, as it was submitted in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. The defendant admitted his guilt in full, agrees with the charge brought against him, refuses to examine the evidence in the case, agrees with the verdict of guilty and the imposition of punishment, which cannot exceed two-thirds of the maximum term provided for in the sanction of the article, it is explained that he cannot appeal the verdict Due to the discrepancy between the conclusions set out in the verdict and the actual circumstances of the case, the petition was filed after consultation with a lawyer. The participants in the process did not object to the consideration of the case in a special manner.
The court considers that the charge, which the defendant agreed with, is justified and supported by the evidence collected in the case.
The court qualifies the actions of the defendant under Part 1 of Art. 318 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 420 of December 7, 2011), as the use of violence not dangerous to life or health, against a government official in connection with the performance of his official duties.
When deciding the issue of sentencing, the court takes into account that the defendant committed an intentional crime of medium gravity, the defendant is characterized negatively, and was brought to administrative responsibility.
Mitigating circumstances based on Art. 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are: admitting guilt in full, making an apology as taking measures to make amends for the harm caused.
Aggravating circumstances provided for in Art. 63 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, not established.
The punishment must be imposed taking into account the requirements of Art. 62 part 1, 5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Considering the circumstances of the crime committed, B.’s behavior at the time of the crime, the characteristics of his personality, the court considers it impossible to apply the provisions of Art. 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the mitigating circumstances established in the case cannot be considered exceptional. Taking into account the actual circumstances of the crime and the degree of its social danger, the court finds no grounds for applying Part 4 of Art. 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Taking into account the personality of the defendant, the social danger of the crime committed, the absence of aggravating circumstances, mitigating circumstances, financial and family status, but at the same time, taking into account that an intentional crime was committed while serving a suspended sentence, during the period of parole for crime committed earlier, the court considers that by his behavior B. did not prove his correction and re-education; correction and re-education of the defendant is not possible without isolating him from society. Based on the reality of the execution of the punishment, its educational impact on the defendant, the court comes to the conclusion that he should be sentenced only in the form of imprisonment. Grounds for imposing punishment using Art. 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - suspended sentence to imprisonment, the court does not find.
Taking into account that the crime was committed before the verdict of the Osinsky District Court <address> dated November 25, 2011, the final punishment must be imposed in accordance with Part 5 of Art. 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, by partial addition of punishments.
The court determines the place of serving the sentence in a general regime correctional colony.
Procedural costs - the lawyer's fee during the preliminary investigation, in the amount of 1029 rubles 39 kopecks, are not recoverable from the defendant, since the case was examined in a special manner.
Based on the aforesaid and guided by Article. 316 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, court,
SENTENCED:
Find B. guilty of committing a crime under Art. 318 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 420 of December 7, 2011) and sentence him to imprisonment for a period of TWO years.
In accordance with Part 5 of Art. 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, by partial addition with the sentence of the verdict of November 25, 2011, finally impose a sentence of THREE YEARS TWO MONTHS of imprisonment, to be served in a general regime correctional colony.
Before the sentence enters into legal force, a preventive measure should be chosen in the form of detention, contained in IZ 59/1 <address>. The term of serving the sentence is calculated from October 9, 2011.
The verdict can be appealed in cassation to the address court through the Osinsky District Court within 10 days from the date of proclamation in compliance with the requirements of Art. 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, and by convicted B., held in custody, within the same period and in the same manner from the date of delivery of a copy of the verdict to him.
If a cassation appeal is filed, the convicted person has the right to petition for his participation in the consideration of the case by the cassation court.
Judge:
S.A. Korobeinikov
Situational tasks in criminal law
Vorobyov kidnapped Sozinov and kept him in his country house for a month. In case of competition Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Art. 127 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in favor of which norm should the final qualification be made?
Answer: In favor of kidnapping (Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), since this is a special norm
Chirkunov entered Savchenko’s apartment through a window and stole property worth 100,000 rubles. His actions fall simultaneously under clause “c” of Part 2 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and paragraph “a”, part 3 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. What should be the final qualification?
Answer: According to paragraph “a” of Part 3 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Vasiliev, while serving in Chechnya, illegally purchased a pistol and kept it at home (Part 1 of Article 222 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Eight years later, during a random search, a pistol was found and confiscated from him. Determine the time when this act was committed.
Answer: The moment of discovery and removal of the pistol.
Ivanov, working as the head of a food warehouse, discovered that he had a surplus of flour in the amount of 200 kg. Deciding to sell them, he removed 15–20 kg of product from the warehouse every day. On the seventh day, Ivanov’s activities were stopped. Qualify this act.
Answer: His actions will be classified as attempted theft of 200 kg bags of flour
Sidorchenko, in a state of passion, killed his wife, whom he found with her lover, inflicting twenty stab wounds on her. In case of competition, clause “d”, part 2, art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Part 1 of Art. 107 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in favor of which norm should the final qualification be decided?
Answer: In favor of Part 1 of Art. 107 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since when two special norms compete, the norm with mitigating circumstances takes priority
Karpenko invited Kruglikov to visit him. After drinking drinks together, a conflict arose between Karpenko and Kruglikov, during which Kruglikov hit Karpenko on the head with a bottle and then stabbed him 10 times. As a result, Karpenko died. At that moment, Petrenko’s neighbor came into the apartment and saw the corpse. Kruglikov, fearing exposure, killed Petrenko. Then Kruglikov told his wife about the crimes committed. She helped her husband dismember the corpses and dissolve the remains in acid. How to qualify the actions of the Kruglikov spouses?
Answer: Kruglikov is liable under paragraphs “a”, “k” of Part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and Kruglikova is not liable for concealment
Leonov, climbing the stairs home, saw Nikolaev lying drunk and, in a fit of anger, kicked him. Nikolaev fell into the stairwell and hit his head on the floor, dying on the spot. How to qualify Leonov's actions?
Answer: Leonov’s actions must be qualified under Part 1 of Art. 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Barkin, motivated by jealousy, attempted to kill Popkov, after which he disappeared. Two months later, Barkin met his housemate in the forest and, fearing that she would betray him, killed her. How should Barkin's actions be qualified?
Answer: Part 3 art. 30, part 1 art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and clause “k”, part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Petrenko used drugs while pregnant. She continued to use drugs after the birth of her daughter. She did not provide proper care for her daughter, as a result of which the child was constantly sick and often cried. One evening, when the child was half a month old, he screamed loudly. Petrenko, in a fit of anger, threw him naked onto the street into the snow. The child was seen by a passerby who took him to the hospital. Therefore, no harm was caused to his health. How to qualify Petrenko's actions?
Answer: Her actions must be qualified under Part 3 of Article 30, paragraph “c” of Part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Zvereva asked her friend Ivanov to help move her drunken husband from the entrance to the apartment. When Ivanov lifted the man up the stairs, he could not hold him and dropped him. He hit his head on the floor and died. How should Ivanov's actions be qualified?
Answer: As innocent mischief
15-year-old Valeeva became pregnant by an adult man. She gave birth to a healthy boy in her apartment and, fearing her parents, strangled him. After which the child's corpse was thrown into a trash can. How to qualify Valeeva’s actions?
Answer: Her actions must be qualified under Art. 106 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Previously convicted of hooliganism and intentionally causing grievous bodily harm, Rykov systematically consumed alcohol. While drunk, Rykov constantly beat his wife and sons. On December 20, 2016, he once again began beating his youngest son. The eldest son Andrei tried to protect his younger brother. Then Rykov punched him in the chest and knocked him down, and he continued beating his youngest son. Then Andrei grabbed a lying kitchen knife and stabbed his father in the chest with it. Ultimately, he struck his father about 20 times. How to qualify the actions of Andrei Rykov?
Answer: He will not be held liable because he was in a state of necessary defense
Arkhipov and Kuritsyna submitted an application to the registry office and entered into sexual intercourse that same evening. Having learned that Kuritsyna was already sexually active, Arkhipov refused to marry Kuritsyna, calling her a slut. Then Kuritsyna returned home and committed suicide. How should Arkhipov's actions be qualified?
Answer: There is no crime in his actions
Pastukhov, out of revenge, decided to disrupt the wedding of Danilina, who did not agree to marry him. For this purpose, under a plausible pretext, he invited her fiancé Firstov to his home and, threatening to mutilate “like God a turtle,” forced him to go underground, where he kept him for two days. The wedding did not take place at the appointed time. Danilina considered herself disgraced because Firstov changed his mind about marrying her and ran away on the eve of the wedding. As a result, she suffered a heart attack and was treated in hospital for two months. Qualify Pastukhov's actions.
Answer: Pastukhov’s actions must be qualified under Part 1 of Art. 127 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Petrukhin and Repitev, posing as relatives, took Kvasova, the daughter of the market director, from the kindergarten and kidnapped her. They demanded 100 thousand euros from her parents for the child’s release. While trying to obtain this amount, they were detained by police officers. The girl was not injured. Qualify the actions of Petrukhin and Repitev.
Answer: They must bear responsibility under the totality of paragraphs “a”, “d”, “h” of Part 2 of Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and paragraph “g”, part 2 of Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
The Mayorov brothers fraudulently lured their 7-year-old son Roshchupkin to their dacha and demanded a ransom of 100 thousand rubles from his father. The boy was fed well for a week and given the opportunity to walk freely in the forest. However, then the boy caught a severe cold and contracted pneumonia. As a result, the Mayorovs were forced to urgently return him to his father and abandon their previous demands. Qualify Mayorov's actions.
Answer: They must be held liable under paragraph “a” of Part 2 of Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Belov, after Verkhova ended her relationship with him and began dating someone else, began constantly threatening her that he would throw acid in her face. At the same time, Belov reminded Verkhova that he had previously been convicted of murder, and currently works as a battery worker and has free access to acid. Qualify Belov's actions.
Answer: Belov’s actions must be qualified under Part 1 of Art. 119 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Question 5
Unemployed Becker was detained by grocery store security on suspicion of theft. He was asked to voluntarily hand over the stolen property, but he refused. Then the guard Yezhov tied Bekker’s hands, tied a two-pound weight to his feet and in this condition took him to the dacha, where he was kept for more than 12 hours. After that, he threatened with violence if he told anyone about what had happened. Then Yezhov released Becker. Qualify Yezhov's actions.
Answer: There is no corpus delicti in Yezhov’s actions according to the note to Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
13-year-old Kruglikov and his eight-year-old sister were walking in the park. On a bench in a deserted place they saw Guryev drinking alcohol with Vasilyeva. Guryev called the children to him, exposed the woman, showed them her genitals, and then performed sexual intercourse. After this, he forced Kruglikov to perform sexual intercourse with his partner, but, noticing an approaching group of men, he stopped his actions. Qualify the actions of Guryev and Vasilyeva.
Answer: The actions of both must be qualified under Part 2 of Art. 133 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Part 3 of Art. 135 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (in relation to Kruglikov) and under paragraph “a” of Part 3 of Art. 132 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (in relation to Kruglikov’s sister)
Previously convicted of murder, Elistratov, while intoxicated, met the minor Tonkikh at night. For the purpose of rape, he struck her hard in the face. The victim lost consciousness, Elistratov dragged her into the bushes and tried to have sexual intercourse with her. However, Tonich regained consciousness, began to resist and scream. To hide the crime, Elistratov began to strangle the victim, but at that time people appeared nearby. Elistratov got scared and ran away. Qualify Elistratov's actions.
Answer: Elistratov’s actions must be qualified under the totality of Part 3 of Art. 30, paragraph “a”, part 3, art. 131 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Part 3 of Art. 30 and paragraph “k”, part 2, art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Gavrilov and Gusev were returning from a nightclub late at night. Passing through the park, they saw Kulagina lying on a bench, highly intoxicated. Having undressed her, they took turns performing sexual acts. Then, despite the severe frost, they left her undressed. The next morning Kulagina was found dead. According to the conclusion of the forensic medical examination, Kulagina’s death was due to hypothermia. Qualify the actions of Gavrilov and Gusev.
Answer: The actions of both must be qualified under paragraph “a” of Part 4 of Art. 131 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
18-year-old Babkov and 14-year-old Karlov, by consent, took turns having sexual intercourse with 13-year-old Svetlova. Qualify the actions of Babkov and Karlov.
Answer: Babkov’s actions must be qualified under Part 3 of Art. 134 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, there is no corpus delicti in Karlov’s actions
Abramov and Myshkin, by prior agreement, brought their acquaintance, 14-year-old Simkina, to the latter’s dacha, where, using physical force, Abramov performed sexual intercourse with her. Myshkin was holding the victim’s hands at this time. After this, Myshkin also tried to perform sexual intercourse using physical force, but he failed. How should the actions of Abramov and Myshkin be qualified?
Answer: The actions of both must be qualified under paragraph “a” of Part 3 of Art. 131 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (rape of a minor, committed by prior conspiracy by a group of persons).
Chernov was released from a correctional colony, where he was serving a sentence for raping a 13-year-old girl. One day he invited two 12-year-old boys to visit him, with whom he committed violent acts of sodomy. Qualify Chernov's actions.
Answer: Chernov’s actions must be qualified as a combination of two crimes provided for in Part 5 of Art. 132 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
