Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
II K 851/23 AI generated

Court partially allows appeal by downgrading theft to petty theft and reducing sentence to suspended probation.

Case Number II K 851/23
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Poland (PL)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Regional Court in Nys initially sentenced the defendant to conditional dismissal for theft, but the District Court in Opole partially overturned this on appeal. The appellate court found the defendant's act constituted a petty offense (art. 284 § 1 k.k.) rather than a crime (art. 278 § 1 k.k.) due to the specific nature of the appropriation. Consequently, the court upheld the conviction but modified the legal characterization and the penalty to a one-year probation period.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 278 § 1 k.k.; Art. 284 § 1 k.k.; Art. 66 § 1 k.k.; Art. 67 § 1 k.k. The court established that when the value of appropriated property is low and the circumstances indicate a lesser degree of culpability, the act may be classified as a petty offense rather than a crime, warranting a suspended sentence instead of a prison term.

Keywords

AI generated
theft classification petty offense conditional dismissal suspended sentence criminal appeal property appropriation probation period

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 278 § 1 k.k.
Art. 284 § 1 k.k.
Art. 66 § 1 k.k.
Art. 67 § 1 k.k.
Art. 629 k.p.k.
Art. 627 k.p.k.
art. 278 § 1 k.k
art. 66 § 1 k.k
art. 67 § 1 k.k
art. 67 § 3 k.k
AI generated
II K 1113/13
Court convicted defendant of theft by purchase of stolen concrete mixer and suspended sentence with fine.
II K 32/16
Court convicted two men of theft, suspended sentences, and ordered restitution for stolen farm equipment.
II K 643/14
Court convicted defendant of theft, sentenced to six months imprisonment, and ordered partial compensation for victim's loss.
II Ka 804/22
Appeal dismissed; court upheld first-instance conviction for dangerous driving due to lack of evidence regarding defendant's knowledge of license revocation. Defendant argued procedural errors and factual mistakes, but court found no basis for appeal.

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