Clarifying statutory designation of conspiracy to commit serious burglary in criminal dispositive

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed the defendant's appeal as unfounded, upholding the Lower Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main's conviction for attempted serious burglary and attempted particularly serious extortionary robbery, while issuing a clarifying order that the lesser conviction in the judgment formula be technically designated as "conspiracy to commit serious burglary under § 244(4) StGB" to align with prevailing legal terminology. The case involved a criminal appeal challenging the conviction for conspiracy to commit offenses against property and personal security, specifically where the lower court had failed to explicitly name the qualifying element of the burglary statute in the operative part of the judgment. The decisive legal basis was the requirement for precise legal characterization of the statutory element under § 244 Abs. 4 StGB, adhering to BGH case law (5 StR 244/24) that mandates identifying the specific qualification ("schwerer Wohnungseinbruchdiebstahl") in the judgment's dispositive formula to ensure clarity and legal accuracy.