Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
V K 75/18 AI generated

Court sentenced defendant to one year and two months imprisonment for continuous fraud and burglary.

Case Number V K 75/18
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Poland (PL)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Regional Court in Giżycko convicted the defendants of continuous fraud and burglary, imposing a sentence of one year and two months imprisonment. The court found the defendants guilty of inducing banks and telecom companies into error to avoid payments and stealing property from a basement and a commercial room. Although the defendants argued regarding the continuity of crimes, the court determined the short time intervals between offenses established a continuous chain of actions warranting a severe penalty.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 286 § 1 kk; Art. 279 § 1 kk; Art. 12 kk; Art. 63 § 1 kk; Art. 46 § 1 kk; Art. 624 § 1 kpk; Art. 632 pkt 2 kpk; The court established that acts committed in short intervals with a premeditated intent constitute a continuous crime, justifying a single aggravated sentence while allowing for the offset of pre-trial detention.

Keywords

AI generated
continuous crime fraud by deception burglary premeditated intent pre-trial detention offset indemnification of loss indirect defense

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 286 § 1 kk
Art. 279 § 1 kk
Art. 12 kk
Art. 63 § 1 kk
Art. 46 § 1 kk
Art. 624 § 1 kpk
Art. 632 pkt 2 kpk

Cited Case Law

AI generated
II KK 448/17
Supreme Court dismisses cassation as obviously unfounded, upholding appellate acquittal on fraud charges.
II KK 73/17
Supreme Court dismissed appeals claiming lower court violated objective impartiality in fraud conviction.
AI generated
II K 182/20
Court convicted defendant of theft but acquitted him of fraud due to lack of deception elements.
II K 209/20
Court imposed suspended sentence and civil damages for fraud, offsetting detention time with fine.
IV Ka 565/13
Court vacated conviction for fraud due to factual errors but upheld embezzlement charge against defendant.
II K 285/21
Court acquits defendant of bribery due to insufficient evidence and witness inconsistencies regarding illicit payments.
VI Ka 1615/17
Appeal dismissed for fraud conviction; defense failed to prove procedural error or excessive sentence.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text