Obligation to discuss suspension of separate custodial sentence in criminal sentencing judgment

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed the defendant's revision as unfounded, upholding the Landgericht Dresden's sentencing judgment which imposed a total custodial sentence of six years and three months alongside a separate eight-month term, with the defendant bearing the costs of the appeal. The dispute centered on a criminal sentencing review where the appellant challenged the lower court's failure to explicitly discuss whether the separate eight-month prison sentence could have been suspended on probation, a point not addressed in the original verdict. The court held that the omission of such a discussion did not constitute a legal error to the defendant's detriment, citing established precedent that the sentencing court is not obligated to address every alternative sentencing possibility in its reasoning, provided the final aggregate sentence is justified.