II Ka 596/22
AI generated
Appeal dismissed; defendant bears full appeal costs as appeal was found entirely groundless under Polish Criminal Procedure Code.
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal against the first-instance conviction for tax evasion and ordered the defendant to pay all appeal costs. The defendant argued procedural errors and factual mistakes, but the court found the appeal entirely groundless. Consequently, the original conviction was upheld, and the defendant was held liable for the full cost of the appellate proceedings.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 636 § 1 k.p.k.; Art. 113 § 1 kks. Where an appeal is found entirely groundless, the convicted person bears the full costs of the appellate proceedings, as deviations from the general rule require exceptional circumstances which were not present here.
Keywords
AI generated
criminal appeal dismissal
tax evasion conviction
court costs allocation
groundless appeal
Criminal Procedure Code
convicted person liability
appellate procedure
Cited Legislation
AI generatedArt. 636 § 1 k.p.k.
Art. 113 § 1 kks
Art. 3 ust. 1 ustawy z dnia 23 czerwca 1973 r. o opłatach w sprawach karnych
§ 1 rozporządzenia Ministra Sprawiedliwości z dnia 18 czerwca 2003 r. w sprawie wysokości i sposobu obliczania wydatków Skarbu Państwa w postępowaniu karnym
art. 438 pkt 1 k.p.k
art. 438 pkt 2 k.p.k
art. 438 pkt 3 k.p.k
art. 438 pkt 4 k.p.k
art. 439 k.p.k
art. 437 § 2 k.p.k
Cited Case Law
AI generatedWyrok SA we Wrocławiu z 18.06.2019 r., II AKa 92/19
Related Decisions
AI generatedII K 406/23
Jeżeli wniosek o uzasadnienie wyroku dotyczy tylko niektórych czynów lub niektórych oskarżonych, sąd może ograniczyć uzasadnienie do części wyroku objętych wnioskiem.
II K 120/17
Court convicted defendant of operating unlicensed gambling machines without a casino license.
II K 67/22
Court convicted defendant of aiding gambling machine operators without a license under Polish Criminal Code.
VII Kz 292/17
Criminal appeal court quashes dismissal of gambling advertising case due to lack of evidence for justified error defense.