Maintenance of confiscation order from prior judgment in criminal appeal
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Federal Court of Justice (5th Criminal Senate) rejected the defendant's appeal as unfounded, with the specific modification that the decision maintaining the confiscation order from a prior district court judgment was deleted, leaving the lower court's conviction in force while removing the ancillary financial penalty. The dispute concerned a criminal appeal against a Berlin Regional Court judgment, where the defendant challenged the appellate court's affirmation of the initial lower-instance verdict and its associated confiscation measures. The decisive legal basis involved the procedural handling of appeal outcomes and the correction of erroneous ancillary orders, specifically the deletion of the confiscation sustainment order based on the General Public Prosecutor's motion, as the court found no grounds to overturn the substantive conviction but required the removal of the specific procedural error regarding the prior confiscation decision.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiertMaintenance of confiscation order from prior judgment in criminal appeal: The dispute concerned a criminal appeal against a Berlin Regional Court judgment, where the defendant challenged the appellate court's affirmation of the initial lower-instance verdict and its associated confiscation measures. The decisive legal basis involved the procedural handling of appeal outcomes and the correction of erroneous ancillary orders, specifically the deletion of the confiscation sustainment order based on the General Public Prosecutor's motion, as the court found no grounds to overturn the substantive conviction but required the removal of the specific procedural error regarding the prior confiscation decision.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertVolltext
Die Revision des Angeklagten gegen das Urteil des Landgerichts Berlin vom 28. Juni 2023 wird mit der Maßgabe als unbegründet verworfen, dass der Ausspruch über die Aufrechterhaltung der Einziehungsentscheidung aus dem Urteil des Amtsgerichts Tiergarten vom 19. Mai 2021 – (419 Ls) 262 Js 3085/20 (3/21), entfällt (vgl. Antragsschrift des Generalbundesanwalts).
Der Beschwerdeführer hat die Kosten seiner Revision zu tragen.
Cirener
Mosbacher
Köhler
Resch
Werner