II K 32/22
AI generated
Court dismisses appeal against combined sentence, ruling it necessary for general and individual prevention despite defendant's claims.
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe court dismissed the defendant's appeal regarding the combined criminal sentence imposed for multiple theft offenses. The defendant argued the sentence was too harsh and failed to meet their expectations, yet the court found no grounds to reduce it. The decision emphasized that the defendant's criminal lifestyle, including habitual theft and lack of restitution, necessitated a stricter penalty to ensure effective prevention.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 572 k.p.k.; Art. 577 k.p.k.: A combined sentence is appropriate when multiple crimes warrant punishment, and the court must balance individual and general prevention, rejecting arguments that a lighter sentence would be more humane if it undermines the goal of preventing future offenses.
Keywords
AI generated
combined criminal sentence
theft offenses
individual prevention
general prevention
restitution obligations
criminal lifestyle
appeal dismissal
Cited Legislation
AI generatedArt. 572 k.p.k.
Art. 577 k.p.k.
Art. 29 ust. 1 ustawy z dnia 26 maja 1982 r. Prawo o adwokaturze
§ 17 ust. 5 i § 4 ust. 3 rozporządzenia Ministra Sprawiedliwości z dnia 3 października 2016 r.
art. 13 § 1 k.k
art. 12 § 2 k.k
art. 278 § 1 k.k
art. 279 § 1 k.k
art. 283 k.k
art. 64 § 1 k.k
Cited Case Law
AI generatedwyrok SA w Białymstoku z dnia 22 października 2019 r., sygn. akt II AKa 182/19
Related Decisions
AI generatedII K 114/23
Wyrokiem Sądu Rejonowego w Kętrzynie z dnia 02 października 2020r.
V KK 125/24
Supreme Court quashes substitute prison sentence for 365 days due to calculation error in conversion of restriction penalty.
II Kzw 18/25
Court dismisses appeal on procedural grounds due to improper filing of a substitute prison sentence execution request.
II K 134/23
Court combined sentences for multiple theft offenses, rejecting leniency due to recidivism and lack of reform.