II Ka 305/20
AI generated
Criminal appeal dismissed; court upheld conviction for theft under Art. 286 § 1 kk due to lack of procedural errors.
Poland (PL)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe District Court in Łukow upheld the defendant's conviction for theft and ordered the defendant to pay court costs. The defense appealed, arguing violations of substantive and procedural law under Articles 438 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Regional Court in Siedlce rejected these claims, finding no errors in the first-instance judgment or facts that could influence the verdict.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 438 k.p.k.; Art. 439 k.p.k.; The appeal is inadmissible if the first-instance judgment is free of legal errors and factual mistakes that could have affected the outcome.
Keywords
AI generated
criminal appeal
theft conviction
procedural error
substantive law
court costs
dismissal of appeal
evidence evaluation
Cited Legislation
AI generatedArt. 286 § 1 kk
Art. 12 kk
Art. 438 k.p.k.
Art. 439 k.p.k.
Art. 634 k.p.k.
Art. 627 k.p.k.
Art. 636 k.p.k.
art. 438 pkt 1 k.p.k
art. 438 pkt 2 k.p.k
art. 438 pkt 3 k.p.k
Cited Case Law
AI generatedIII KK 181/10
Supreme Court dismissed fraud appeal as lower court's legal error did not cause a flagrant violation of criminal procedure law.
III KK 363/07
Supreme Court allows cassation dismissal, ruling defendant's robbery acts under continuous crimes allow three sentencing options under Art. 57 § 2 CC.
Related Decisions
AI generatedII Ka 177/23
Court quashes first-instance judgment on guilt and sentence due to legal error in qualification under Art. 438 k.p.k.
II Ka 314/22
Court dismissed appeal on procedural grounds, upholding conviction for animal cruelty and veterinary negligence.
II Ka 665/22
Appeal dismissed; defense failed to prove procedural error or factual mistake affecting the conviction.
II Ka 525/24
Appeal dismissed; defense failed to prove procedural error under Art. 438 § 2 k.p.k. under Polish Criminal Procedure Code.
II Ka 604/22
Appeal dismissed; defendant's defense rejected, but state covers defense costs due to prison isolation.