Amending conviction for concurrence of drug trafficking, possession, and unlawful baton carrying in criminal revision
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed the defendant's revision against a Paderborn Regional Court judgment, rejecting the appeal as unfounded while amending the conviction to find the defendant guilty of dealing with narcotics in two instances (one in concurrence with possession of a large quantity and unlawful possession of a baton), and possession of narcotics in concurrence with unlawful carrying of a baton; the defendant bears the costs of the legal remedy. The dispute involved a criminal appeal challenging the factual and legal assessment of drug trafficking and possession offenses, specifically the concurrence of crimes and the weapon charge. The decision rests on the BGH's power to correct legal errors in the judgment's tenor to align the conviction with the verified facts, applying German criminal law principles on narcotics offenses (§§ 29, 30a Betäubungsmittelgesetz) and weapons offenses.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiertAmending conviction for concurrence of drug trafficking, possession, and unlawful baton carrying in criminal revision: The dispute involved a criminal appeal challenging the factual and legal assessment of drug trafficking and possession offenses, specifically the concurrence of crimes and the weapon charge. The decision rests on the BGH's power to correct legal errors in the judgment's tenor to align the conviction with the verified facts, applying German criminal law principles on narcotics offenses (§§ 29, 30a Betäubungsmittelgesetz) and weapons offenses.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertVolltext
Die Revision des Angeklagten gegen das Urteil des Landgerichts Paderborn vom 24. Mai 2022 wird aus den Gründen der Antragsschrift des Generalbundesanwalts mit der Maßgabe als unbegründet verworfen, dass der Angeklagte des Handeltreibens mit Betäubungsmitteln in zwei Fällen, davon in einem Fall in Tateinheit mit Besitz von Betäubungsmitteln in nicht geringer Menge und mit unerlaubtem Besitz eines Schlagrings, sowie wegen Besitzes von Betäubungsmitteln in Tateinheit mit unerlaubtem Führen eines Schlagrings schuldig ist.
Der Beschwerdeführer hat die Kosten des Rechtsmittels zu tragen.
Quentin
Bartel
Rommel
Maatsch
Messing