Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
4 StR 566/24 ECLI:DE:BGH:2025:070525B4STR566.24.0 KI-generiert

Revision against criminal conviction and clarification of confiscation order for seized firearms, ammunition, and narcotics.

Geschäftsnummer 4 StR 566/24
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Abgewiesen (Dismissed)
Kostenauflage zulasten Beschwerdeführer/in
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The German Federal Court of Criminal Fourth Senate dismissed the defendant's revision against the Landgericht Dortmund judgment, upholding the conviction while clarifying the order for confiscation and imposing costs on the appellant. The dispute concerned the legality of a sentencing judgment that included an order for the forfeiture of seized items, specifically where the lower court had ambiguously listed two magazines for a Kalashnikov-type rifle. The court determined that while the conviction stands and the confiscation of firearms, ammunition, narcotics (cocaine and marijuana), and weapons (baseball bat, knuckle duster, electroshock device) is valid, the specific confiscation of the two rifle magazines must be withdrawn due to descriptive errors, rendering the remainder of the judgment final without additional legal errors to the defendant's detriment under Section 349(2) Code of Criminal Procedure.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 349 Abs. 2 StPO, § 473 Abs. 1 StPO; Revision against criminal conviction and clarification of confiscation order for seized firearms, ammunition, and narcotics: The dispute concerned the legality of a sentencing judgment that included an order for the forfeiture of seized items, specifically where the lower court had ambiguously listed two magazines for a Kalashnikov-type rifle. The court determined that while the conviction stands and the confiscation of firearms, ammunition, narcotics (cocaine and marijuana), and weapons (baseball bat, knuckle duster, electroshock device) is valid, the specific confiscation of the two rifle magazines must be withdrawn due to descriptive errors, rendering the remainder of the judgment final without additional legal errors to the defendant's detriment under Section 349(2) Code of Criminal Procedure.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
strafrechtliche Einziehung Revision des Strafurteils Widerhandlung gegen das Waffengesetz Strafzumessung Einziehung unter internationalen Sanktionen Kriegskonterbande

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 349 Abs. 2 StPO
Procedural basis cited to confirm that the appellate review revealed no legal errors to the detriment of the defendant, resulting in the dismissal of the revision.
§ 473 Abs. 1 StPO
Provision cited to impose the costs of the appellate proceedings on the appellant following the rejection of their appeal.
KI-generiert
5 StR 574/23
Confiscation of ammunition and drug trade equipment: lack of nexus to charged offenses and absence of adjudicated weapons offense
6 StR 476/23
Confiscation of offensive weapon in criminal revision: waiver of seizure order despite dismissal of appeal
4 StR 523/20
Criminal conviction for illegal weapon possession invalidated for failure to prove functionality and exclusion of weapon confiscation from sentencing mitigation
5 StR 747/24
Correction of conviction for drug trafficking and firearms possession based on misclassification of revolvers as semi-automatic weapons; amendment of guilt declaration under § 354 StPO
2 StR 288/21
Concurrence of offenses: actual control of war weapon vs. drug dealing and false documents; defectiveness of confiscation orders due to lack of specific identification and statutory discretion

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert
§ 349 Abs. 2 StPO

Procedural basis cited to confirm that the appellate review revealed no legal errors to the detriment of the defendant, resulting in the dismissal of the revision.

§ 473 Abs. 1 StPO

Provision cited to impose the costs of the appellate proceedings on the appellant following the rejection of their appeal.

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

1. Die Revision des Angeklagten gegen das Urteil des Landgerichts Dortmund vom 3. Juli 2024 wird aus den Gründen der Antragsschrift des Generalbundesanwalts mit der Maßgabe verworfen, dass der Ausspruch über die Einziehung dahingehend klargestellt wird, dass die Einziehung der folgenden sichergestellten Gegenstände angeordnet wird:

- halbautomatische Pistole Colt Modell 1911 Kaliber .45 nebst passendem Stangenmagazin,

- halbautomatische Pistole Walther Modell 9x19 Kaliber 9 mm nebst passendem Stangenmagazin,

- halbautomatische Pistole Walther Modell P 22 Kaliber .22 lfb nebst zwei passenden Stangenmagazinen,

- fünf Patronen des Kalibers 9 x 19 mm, 25 Patronen des Kalibers .45, 39 Patronen des Kalibers .22 lfb, zwölf Patronen des Kalibers 9 x 19 mm des Herstellers Geco, 97 Patronen des Kalibers 7,62 x 39 mm, 18 Patronen des Kalibers 7,65 x 17 mm, fünf Patronen des Kalibers .44 Remington Magnum,

- Baseballschläger,

- Schlagring,

- Elektroimpulsgerät in Form einer Taschenlampe,

- 50,7 g Kokain und

- 16,2776 kg Marihuana

und die Einziehung hinsichtlich der zwei Magazine für ein Gewehr des Typs „Kalaschnikow“ entfällt.

Im Übrigen hat die Nachprüfung des Urteils aufgrund der Revisionsrechtfertigung keinen Rechtsfehler zum Nachteil des Angeklagten ergeben (§ 349 Abs. 2 StPO).

2. Der Beschwerdeführer hat die Kosten des Rechtsmittels zu tragen (§ 473 Abs. 1 StPO).

Quentin Sturm Maatsch

Scheuß Marks