Article 167. Deliberate destruction or damage to property

1. Intentional destruction or damage to someone else's property, if these deeds caused significant damage, -

2. The same deeds, committed out of hooligan motives, by arson, explosion, or in any other generally dangerous way, or which through negligence caused the death of a person or other grave consequences, -

Article 168. Destruction or damage to property through negligence

Destruction or damage to another's property large size committed by careless handling of fire or other sources of increased danger -

Note: 2. Significant damage to a citizen in the articles of this chapter is determined taking into account his property status, but cannot be less than two thousand five hundred rubles.

4. In the articles of this Chapter, the value of property in excess of two hundred and fifty thousand rubles is recognized as a large amount, and one million rubles as an especially large amount.

These attacks, unlike theft, are not associated with the criminal enrichment of the perpetrators, but their public danger can be very significant. Destruction or damage to property can cause significant damage to property relations, since citizens, private, state, public, municipal or other organizations lose significant material assets lose the opportunity to use their property in accordance with its purpose. Deliberate destruction or damage to property (Article 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). In part 1 of Art. 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for liability for the deliberate destruction or damage to another's property, if these acts caused significant damage.

objective side This crime is expressed in the destruction or damage of another's property. Destruction means bringing property into complete unsuitability, excluding the possibility of its further use for its intended purpose. Destruction annuls the economic significance of the property. Damage is recognized as a decrease in the economic value of property by partially rendering it unusable. After repair, restoration, etc., the properties of the damaged property can be fully restored. Destruction and damage to property is possible through both action and inaction. The methods used in this case may include mechanical or other impact on the subject. The object is private, state, public or other property of more or less significant value. It should be noted that the range of things, objects related to such property is wider than the range of items of theft. This additionally includes buildings, structures, other real estate. However, it must be borne in mind that the destruction, damage or destruction of certain types of property is prosecuted in accordance with the rules included in other chapters of the Criminal Code (Article 205 and others). Mandatory features of the objective side of the crime in question are a socially dangerous consequence in the form of causing significant damage, as well as the presence causation between an act and its consequences. The concept of significant damage in relation to the destruction or damage to property in the law is not disclosed.

Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in the resolution of June 5, 2002 "On judicial practice in cases of violation of the rules fire safety, destruction or damage to property by arson or as a result of careless handling of fire ”explained that when deciding whether significant damage was caused to the owner or other owner of the property, one should proceed from the value of the destroyed property or the cost of restoring damaged property, the significance of this property for the victim, for example, depending on the type of his activity and financial situation or financial and economic condition of the legal entity that was the owner or other owner of the destroyed or damaged property.

Subjective side crimes are characterized by direct or indirect intent. If, in the destruction or damage of property, the perpetrator pursues the goal of violating public security, intimidating the population, or influencing decision-making by authorities, the deed constitutes terrorism (Article 205 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

The subject of a crime committed without aggravating circumstances can be any person who has reached the age of 16 years (under aggravating circumstances, part 2 - 14 years). A qualified type of crime (part 2 of article 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) is the destruction or damage to someone else's property, committed out of hooligan motives, by arson, explosion or in another generally dangerous way, or negligently causing the death of a person or other grave consequences. The generally dangerous method involves the use, in addition to arson, explosion, also such methods as flooding, collapse, etc., which pose a threat to human life or health. Actual infliction of death on a person deliberate destruction or damage to someone else's property is covered by the corpus delicti of this crime only if the guilty person is careless about this consequence. In the presence of indirect, and even more so direct intent in relation to the death of a person, the deed forms a set of deliberate destruction or damage to someone else's property (part 2 of article 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and murder (Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Other grave consequences are understood as: causing grievous harm health of at least one person or causing moderate harm to the health of two or more persons; leaving victims without housing or livelihoods; prolonged suspension or disorganization of the work of an enterprise, institution or organization; disconnection of consumers from life support sources - electricity, gas, heat, water supply, etc.

Responsibility for the commission of acts provided for by Part 2 of Art. 167 of the Criminal Code, begins at the age of 14.Object of the crime- property relations.

An object is someone else's property (in the sense of a thing), both movable and immovable. A generally dangerous method is understood as a method that creates a threat of destruction of the property of an unlimited number of persons or a threat to their life and health (explosion, arson, flooding, etc.).

The attitude to the consequences in the form of the death of a person can only be careless. In this case, the subjective side of the corpus delicti is expressed in the presence of two forms of guilt. In case of intent, responsibility for the murder comes, which does not exclude the imputation of the totality of crimes, Part 2 of Art. 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Other “serious consequences caused by negligence as a result of intentional destruction or damage to property (part two of Article 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) include, in particular, the infliction of serious bodily harm to at least one person through negligence or the infliction of moderate bodily harm to two or more persons; leaving victims without housing or livelihoods, prolonged suspension or disorganization of the work of an enterprise, institution or organization, prolonged disconnection of consumers from life support sources - electricity, gas, heat, water supply, etc." (Clause 10 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of June 5, 2002 N 14 "On judicial practice in cases of violation of fire safety rules, destruction or damage to property by arson or as a result of careless handling of fire").

Intentional infliction of death and any harm to health (heavy, moderate, light) is not covered by Art. 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and requires additional qualification under the rules on crimes against the person.

Destruction or damage to property through negligence (Article 168 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Criminal liability under this article occurs under the condition of destruction or damage to someone else's property on a large scale as a result of careless handling of fire or other sources of increased danger. Within the meaning of Note 4 to Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in this case, the value of property in excess of two hundred and fifty thousand rubles is recognized as a large amount. Careless handling of fire or other sources of increased danger may, for example, consist in improper handling of ignition sources near combustible materials, in the operation of technical devices with unrepaired defects (for example, leaving unattended electrical appliances, gas stoves, etc.). The corpus delicti is material, it is recognized as completed from the moment of destruction or damage to property on a large scale.

Subjective side crime is characterized only by a careless form of guilt.

Subject of the crime- a person who has reached the age of 16 years.

The elements of this crime basically repeat the elements of the intentional destruction or damage to property (Article 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Differences affect the act, the amount of damage, the subjective side and qualifying signs.

The act should be expressed in "handling fire or other sources of increased danger." This act may be connected both with the violation of special rules established by regulatory legal acts, and with the violation of general reasonable precautions. For example, M., in a state of intoxication in a quarrel, threw a piece of bread at his wife, but hit a burning kerosene lamp, which fell and broke, resulting in a fire in a residential building.

Careless handling of fire or other sources of increased danger in the sense of Art. 168 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation may, in particular, consist in improper handling of sources of ignition near combustible materials, in the operation of technical devices with unrepaired defects (for example, the use of a tractor in the forest without a spark arrester, leaving unattended stoves, fires or electrical appliances, gas burners and etc.).

The damage must be large, i.e. exceed two hundred and fifty thousand rubles. Major damage is defined in a fixed amount of money, is calculated at the time of the crime and is not an appraisal sign.

Material corpus delicti. The act ended from the moment of causing major damage.

Subjective side characterized by a careless form of guilt (frivolity or negligence).

Subject of the crime- a sane person who has reached the age of sixteen years.

In the current version of Art. 168 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation there are no qualifying signs.

If, as a result of careless handling of fire or other sources of increased danger, which resulted in the destruction or damage to someone else's property on a large scale, a person died, the actions of the perpetrator are qualified according to the totality of articles providing for liability for causing death by negligence (Article 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and destruction or damage to property through negligence (Article 168 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

P R I G O V O R

NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ?xml:namespace>

Judge of Chernihiv district court Primorsky Territory G.N. Slyusareva,

with the participation of the public prosecutor, senior assistant prosecutor of the Chernihiv region Usatenko E.V..,

defendant Chevtaev Vitaly Fedorovich, Born March 25, 1955, native of Cape. Peschany, Nadezhdinsky District, Primorsky Territory, citizen of the Russian Federation, higher education, single, working PU-52, master of industrial training, liable for military service, previously convicted:

08/13/2001 by the Ussuriysky District Court under Art. 30 h. 3, Art. 105 h. 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 8 years in prison, released on April 30, 2009 after serving the sentence, living with. Chernigovka, Chernihiv region, Primorsky Krai, st. Krasnoarmeiskaya, 99,

defender Vavrinchuk V.V.,
who submitted certificate No. 1409 and order No. 680,

at the secretary Bubnova E.V.,

as well as the victim Sitnik L.N.,

having considered the materials of the criminal case against Chevtaev Vitaly Fedorovich, accused of committing a crime under article 167 part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation;

INST A N O V&L:

Chevtaev V.F., on the night of January 14 to 15, 2010, on the basis of personal, hostile relations with cohabitant G.S. Klimova, having intent to destroy someone else's property, realizing the socially dangerous nature of his actions, foreseeing the onset of property damage and desiring the onset of these consequences, took in the summer kitchen, located in the courtyard of the house number 99 on the street. Krasnoarmeyskaya in the village. Chernigovka, Chernihiv region, Primorsky Krai, in which Chevtaev V.F. lived with his cohabitant, a plastic bottle with gasoline (according to the examination of oil products No. 224/28-1 dated 03/12/2010, liquid in a bottle seized on 01/15/2010 during an inspection of the scene at the address Chernigovka village, Krasnoarmeyskaya street, d 97, apt. 1, is gasoline), came to the courtyard of the house 97 on the street. Krasnoarmeyskaya s. Chernigovka, owned by Sitnik L.N., believing that Klimova T.S. is in the house of Sitnik L.N. and, hoping that Klimova G.S. leave the house Sitnik L.N. and goes to his home, went to the front door, deliberately doused the door with gasoline from a plastic bottle, set fire to a match, threw a burning match on the front door of apartment No. 1, building 97 on the street. Krasnoarmeyskaya s. Chernigovka, thereby committing arson. As a result of the arson, the personal property of Mr. Sitnik L.N., located on the porch of the house: a plastic bucket with a capacity of 8 liters, worth 100 rubles; clothespins three sets of 20 pcs. each set, costing 60 rubles. in the amount of 180 rubles; three umbrellas, worth 50 rubles each, in the amount of 150 rubles; women's shoes, worth 800 rubles; wooden wardrobe, worth 300 rubles; a set of curtains, worth 300 rubles; autumn jacket, worth 200 rubles; carpet measuring 1x1.5 m., worth 300 rubles; two switches, costing 20 rubles. each in the amount of 40 rubles; socket, worth 30 rubles; 10 meters of electrical wire, costing 70 rubles; 9 glasses measuring 22x28 cm and one glass measuring 0.83x1.4 for a total of 575 rubles; entrance wooden door, worth 6000 rubles. Also, as a result of the fire, the wooden walls on the porch of the house were damaged, for the repair of which Sitnik L.N. 4725 rubles were spent. Thus Chevtaev The.F. caused significant material damage Sitnik L.N. for a total amount of 13770 rubles. According to the conclusion of the Fire and Technical Expertise No. 212 dated February 17, 2010, “the fire broke out on the outside of the front door and the wall of the veranda of the house, the cause of the fire is the ignition of combustible materials of the veranda from an open fire source (the flame of a match, lighter, torch, and so on), possibly with the presence of a combustion intensifier (FL, GZH). ?xml:namespace>

IN court session defendant Chevtaev The.F. fully agreed with the charge and supported his petition for a special procedure for judicial proceedings, while explaining that he made such a decision consciously and voluntarily, after consultation with the defense counsel.

After a break granted by the court for additional consultation with the defender Vavrinchuk The.The. Chevtaev V.F. He explained that he understood the consequences of considering a criminal case in a special manner, especially the appeal of a sentence issued without a trial. He understands the accusation, he still supports the petition. He asks not to punish him severely, he realized his guilt, this will not happen again.

Defendant defendant Vavrinchuk The.The. petition Chevtaeva The.F. supported.

The state prosecutor does not object to the consideration of the case in a special manner.

Victim Sitnik L.N. agreed to the consideration of the criminal case in a special manner, explaining that she had reconciled with the defendant, asking the strict not to punish, to compensate for the damage.

The court considered the present criminal case in a special order.

Having examined the materials of the case, the court concludes that the accusation, with which the defendant agreed, is justified, is supported by the evidence collected in the case. ?xml:namespace>

actions Chevtaeva The.F. under Art. 167 part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as the deliberate destruction and damage to another's property, if these acts caused significant damage by arson, are correctly qualified.

When determining the type and measure of punishment, the court takes into account the circumstances of the case, the identity of the defendant.

Circumstances mitigating the punishment of the court include the repentance of the defendant, partial compensation for damages.

To aggravating circumstances, the court considers the presence of the defendant's recidivism of the crime.

Considering the deed, the personality of the defendant, the court considers the punishment to be imposed in the vision of freedom, given the petition of the victim not to deprive the defendant of freedom, extenuating circumstances, the court considers it possible to determine the punishment conditionally, using Art. 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, appointing a probationary period.

victim Sitnik L.N. caused damage in the amount of 13,770 rubles, compensated for 4,725 rubles, uncompensated damage in the amount of 9,045 rubles. V the force of Art. 1064 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation should be satisfied - recover from the defendant.

According to the above, guided by Art., Art. 307-309, 317 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, court

SENTENCED:

xml:namespace>

Recognize Chevtaev Vitaly Fedorovich guilty of an offense under Art. 167 part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and assign punishment to three years in prison.

In accordance with Art. . 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to consider the punishment conditional, with probationary period V 3 years 6 months.?xml:namespace>

A measure of restraint to leave a written undertaking not to leave and proper behavior until the entry into force of the sentence.

Oblige Chevtaeva The.F. to register with the penitentiary inspection at the place of residence, once a month to be registered with the specified body.

To recover from Chevtaev Vitaly Fedorovich in favor of Sitnik Lyudmila Nikolaevna in compensation for damage 9045 rubles.

Material evidence: a fragment of the door trim, a plastic bottle and a cork with liquid residues with a characteristic smell of gasoline, two gauze swabs - located in the material evidence storage room of the Chernigov police department municipal district-destroy upon the entry into force of the sentence; black jacket, beige sweater, black tights, black boots, located in the evidence room of the Department of Internal Affairs in the Chernihiv municipal district -upon entry sentence into force to return the defendant Chevtaeva The.F.

The verdict can be appealed to the Primorsky Regional Court, through the Chernigov District Court within 10 days from the date of its announcement, in compliance with the requirements of Article. 317 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

Article 167. Deliberate destruction or damage to property. 1. Intentional destruction or damage to someone else's property, if these deeds caused significant damage, -

shall be punishable by a fine in the amount up to 40 thousand roubles, or in the amount of the wage or salary, or any other income of the convicted person for a period up to three months, or by compulsory works for a term of 100 to 180 hours, or by corrective labor for a term of up to one year, or by arrest for a term of up to three months or imprisonment for up to two years.
(as amended by Federal Law No. 162-FZ of 08.12.2003)
2. The same deeds, committed out of hooligan motives, by arson, explosion, or in any other generally dangerous way, or if negligently caused the death of a person or other grave consequences, -
(as amended by Federal Law No. 162-FZ of 08.12.2003)
shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of up to five years.
Commentary on article 167
1. The objective side of this crime is characterized by the destruction or damage to someone else's property. In the theory of criminal law and judicial practice, destruction is understood as bringing property into complete disrepair, excluding the possibility of its use for its intended purpose, and damage is a decrease in its economic integrity, which can be restored as a result of repair (restoration) of damaged property.
2. An obligatory sign of the objective side of the crime in question is social dangerous consequences in the form of causing significant damage and the existence of a causal relationship between the destruction or damage to someone else's property and the indicated socially dangerous consequence.
3. The concept of significant damage in criminal law theory and judicial practice is interpreted close to that of theft, i.e. in this case, not only the cost of the destroyed or damaged property is taken into account, but also some other circumstances (first of all, the material or financial situation of the victims - individuals or legal entities; in contrast to paragraph "c" of part 2 of article 158 of the Criminal Code, significant damage is determined not only in relation to a citizen, but also in relation to other owners and legal owners of property - state and municipal enterprises and institutions, various commercial and non-commercial organizations, etc.). The estimated nature of the damage often causes certain difficulties in concretizing it in judicial practice.
So, L. was acquitted by the court of first instance on charges of a crime under Part 1 of Art. 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The case materials established that when stealing a telephone cable, L. damaged telephone cable networks, the restoration of which Elektrosvyaz spent about 14 thousand rubles, and the regional communications and radio navigation center - more than 53 thousand rubles. Justifying L. in connection with the absence of corpus delicti in his actions, the court indicated that the damage caused by him to the regional communications and radio navigation center and OJSC Elektrosvyaz could not be significant, since the income of these enterprises amounted, respectively, to more than 3 million rubles . and 72 million rubles. Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court Russian Federation, having considered the case in cassation, recognized as established the receipt by the injured organizations of income in the indicated amounts, however, indicated that the court of first instance did not take into account the fact that the costs of the regional communications and radio navigation center exceeded 3 million rubles. (the profit amounted to 286 thousand rubles), and Electrosvyaz OJSC was generally a loss-making enterprise (costs exceeded revenue). The Board also pointed out that when assessing property damage, the opinion of the injured party cannot be ignored, however, during interrogation in court, the representatives of civil plaintiffs were not asked how they assess the damage caused to enterprises. In this regard, the board ruled that the court's conclusion that there was no corpus delicti in L.'s actions was not based on a full and comprehensive study of the case materials and the court did not give a proper assessment of all the circumstances of the case, the sentence regarding L.'s acquittal under Part 1 of Art. 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was canceled and the case was sent for a new judicial review (BVS RF. 2001. N 1. P. 11).
4. The subject of destruction or damage to property, committed without aggravating circumstances (part 1 of article 167), can only be a person who has reached the age of 16 (the subject of a qualified crime under part 2 of the article in question is a person who has reached the age of 14) .
5. The subjective side is characterized by intent (both direct and indirect). A person is aware of the social danger of his act, foresees that as a result of this, someone else's property will be destroyed or damaged, and wishes this, or, if he does not wish, consciously allows the infliction of significant damage to the victim or is indifferent to the occurrence of such a consequence.
6. Part 2 of Art. 167 establishes increased liability for the deliberate destruction or damage of another's property, if these acts were committed out of hooligan motives, or by arson, explosion or in any other generally dangerous way, or negligently caused the death of a person or other grave consequences. Destruction or damage to other people's property in a generally dangerous way (other than explosion or arson) involves a method of action that also creates a threat of harm to a person or other property, and not just the property being destroyed or damaged (for example, flooding, collapse). At the same time, it should be noted that judicial practice does not attribute any destruction or damage to property by burning it to arson. The burning of certain things and objects that did not create a threat of harm to citizens, as well as the destruction or damage to other property, is qualified taking into account the nature and severity of the consequences of this crime (see the Collection of Resolutions of the Plenums of the Supreme Courts of the USSR and the RSFSR (Russian Federation) on criminal cases. M. , 2000, p. 284).
T. was convicted for the fact that, having taken possession of a car and having reached the settlement he needed, in order to hide the traces of the crime, he destroyed the car by arson. The investigating authorities and the court qualified these actions (along with the theft) as the deliberate destruction of property by arson. The military collegium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation found such a qualification erroneous and qualified his actions as deliberate destruction or damage to someone else's property without aggravating circumstances, indicating that T. set fire to a stolen car on the shore of a lake, in a deserted place, away from buildings and his actions were not generally dangerous character (Judicial practice to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. M., 2001. S. 776 - 777).
At the same time, judicial practice rightly proceeds from the fact that the actual amount of damage does not affect the assessment of what was done in the case of a generally dangerous method of intentional destruction or damage to someone else's property.
Thus, Zh. was found guilty of intentionally destroying someone else's property by arson under the following circumstances. At night, Zh., being in a state of intoxication in the apartment of his cohabitant Z., after a quarrel with her, doused furniture varnish and vodka on the floor, carpet, mattress, featherbed, TV and other property and set fire to it in order to destroy it. During the fire, part of the property of the victim was burned in the amount of 123 thousand rubles. (non-denominated), after which the fire was extinguished. By decision of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Regional Court, the sentence was annulled and the case was dismissed due to the absence of corpus delicti in Zh.'s actions. At the same time, the board referred to the fact that, according to the testimony of the victim, the damage caused was not significant for her. The Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, having considered the case at the protest of the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, disagreed with the opinion of the regional court, stating that the infliction of significant damage as part of the qualified destruction or damage to property is not a sign of this crime (it could be a sign of a similar crime, but committed without aggravating circumstances). In addition, the regional court did not give a proper assessment of the fact that as a result of the arson, Z.'s children, her minors and young sons, who were sleeping in the next room, could have suffered. Leaving the apartment after the arson, Zh. did not wake up the children and did not warn them about the arson. Hearing that Zh. was leaving the apartment, Z.'s underage son, who woke up, saw a fire in the next room, which, with the help of younger brothers extinguished. Under such circumstances, the Supreme Court, having recognized the decision of the regional court as illegal and unfounded, canceled it and sent the case for a new cassation hearing (Legality. 1997. N 5. P. 56 - 57).
7. "Deliberate destruction or damage to individual items using fire under conditions that exclude its spread to other objects and the emergence of a threat of harm to human life and health, as well as other people's property, should be qualified under part 1 of article 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, if the victim significant damage has been caused" (Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in the case of M. and K. // BVS RF. 2003. N 7. P. 9).
8. The qualified composition of the destruction or damage of another's property, which negligently caused the death of a person or other grave consequences, is characterized by specific features of the main feature of the subjective side of the crime - guilt. This crime is a kind of crimes committed with two forms of guilt (Article 27 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). In such a case, the mental attitude of the perpetrator to the destruction or damage of someone else's property is characterized by direct or indirect intent, and to the death of the victim or other grave consequences - only negligence (frivolity or negligence).
9. Other grave consequences are understood as infliction of harm to the health of a citizen, infliction of large material damage to the victim, etc.

Case No. 1-120/17

SENTENCE

IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Oktyabrsky District Court of Ufa, Republic of Bashkortostan, consisting of:

presiding judge Usyk I.M.,

under the secretary Filippova K.A.,

with the participation of the public prosecutor Musatova M.V.,

defendant Pechishcheva P.Yu.,

defender Biktimerova L.R.,

having examined in an open court session, in a special order, the materials of the criminal case in respect of:

Pechishcheva P.Yu.,

accused of committing crimes, under Part. 1 Article. 167, part 1 of Art. 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,

SET UP:

1. Pechischev P.Yu. October 24, 2015 at about 02.00 am, being in the courtyard of the house at the address: Republic of Belarus, Ufa, st. Rossiyskaya, 43, having the intent to destroy and damage other people's property with causing significant damage, approached the Lefan Breeze car with the state registration mark M 192 XP 02 RUS and inflicted side blows with a knife on four tires installed on the above car, thereby destroyed and damaged the property belonging to FULL NAME1., causing their actions to the latter, significant material damage totaling 9 960 rubles.

2. Pechischev P.Yu. March 02, 2016 at about 17.11 hours, being in the Magnit store located at the address: Republic of Belarus, Ufa, st. B. Tyulkina, 3, having the intent to steal someone else's property, out of selfish motives, taking advantage of the fact that no one is watching his criminal actions, he took from the rack two bottles of cognac of the Russian 5 Years 40 brand belonging to JSC Tander % Makhachkalin", with a volume of 0.5 liters each, costing 294 rubles each, total cost 588 rubles, after which he hid under his jacket and tried to take them out of the store, but was noticed and exposed by the seller FULL NAME2, which demanded to stop the criminal acts. Pechischev P.Yu., not responding to the demands to return the stolen property, continuing his criminal actions aimed at the open theft of other people's property, with the stolen property fled the scene of the crime, thereby causing Tander JSC property damage in the total amount of 588 rubles.

defendant Pechischev P.Yew. agreed with the charge, fully admitted guilt and supported the petition for a sentence without a trial.

The court finds the petition to be satisfied on the following grounds.

In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 314 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the accused has the right, with the consent of the public or private prosecutor and the victim, to declare his agreement with the charge against him and petition for a sentence without a trial in criminal cases of crimes, the punishment for which, provided for by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, does not exceed 10 years deprivation of liberty.

The court made sure that the defendant is aware of the nature and consequences of his petition, it was declared voluntarily and after consultations with the defense counsel.

The consent of the public prosecutor, defender, victim FULL NAME1 (vol. 3 case file 154), the representative of the victim JSC «Tander» FULL NAME3 (vol. 2 case file 228) to pass a sentence without a trial is given.

The accusation, with which the defendant agreed, is reasonably supported by the evidence collected in the criminal case. The punishment for these crimes does not exceed ten years in prison.

The court agrees with the public prosecutor and the actions of Pechishcheva P.Yew. on the episode with the victim FULL NAME1 qualifies for hours. 1 Article. as intentional damage to someone else's property, if these acts caused significant damage. The significance of the damage to the victim FULL NAME1 is confirmed by the financial situation of the latter and the size of the damage caused.

According to the episode with the victim JSC "Tander" - qualifies under Part 1 of Art. as robbery, that is, the open theft of another's property.

The civil claim of the representative of the victim JSC "Tander" - FULL NAME3 and for the recovery of material damage in the amount of 588 rubles from the defendant, the court satisfies in full, since it is confirmed by the case materials and is not disputed by the defendant.

When sentencing the defendant Pechishcheva P.Yew. the court recognizes and takes into account the circumstances mitigating the punishment: full admission of guilt, repentance for the deed, compensation for damage to the victim FULL NAME1, active contribution to the investigation of the crime, the defendant's explanations in which the latter confessed before the initiation of the criminal case, his state of health, takes care of the elderly grandmother, is an orphan.

An aggravating circumstance is the recidivism of crimes.

In imposing punishment, the court, guided by the principle of justice, takes into account the nature and degree of danger of the crime committed, all the circumstances of the case, the identity of the perpetrator, as well as the impact of the punishment imposed on the correction of the convict, considers it necessary to appoint Pechishcheva P.Yew. punishment in the form of deprivation of liberty, which, in the opinion of the court, can ensure the achievement of the goals of punishment, namely, the restoration of social justice and the correction of the convicted person, preventing him from committing new crimes.

Given the extenuating circumstances, the court considers to apply to him a suspended sentence, establishing a probationary period with the assignment of certain duties to him, under Part. 5 Article. .

Grounds for application h. 6 Article. , Art. , as well as Art. h. to the defendant Pechishcheva P.Yew. associated with goals and motives that could significantly reduce the degree of public danger of the crime, the court does not find.

In determining the type and amount of punishment, the court is guided by the requirements of Part. 5 Article. .

Guided by Articles 314-317 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the court

SENTENCED

Pechishcheva P.Yu. found guilty of committing crimes, under Part. 1 Article. , part 1, art. 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and impose the following punishment:

Kopantsov committed illegal possession, without the purpose of selling narcotic drugs, on a large scale. Kopantsov A.S. at a time not established by the investigation, being in a place not established by the investigation, without the purpose of selling for personal use, no later than 18 hours ...

Zolotov M.A. committed theft, that is, the secret theft of another's property, causing significant damage to a citizen. So he, the date is about ... minutes, being in apartment No. 478, 5 bldg. 1 to the address to the address, having a criminal intent aimed at ...

Our phone +7-905-5555-200

Saint Petersburg

SENTENCE

In the name of the Russian Federation

Judge of the Petrodvorets District Court of St. Petersburg Bereznyakova E.A.,

With the participation of the public prosecutor - assistant prosecutor of the Petrodvorets district of St. Petersburg Smirnov S.M.,

Victim Serbina E.V.,

Defender - lawyer, who presented warrant No. 754187 and certificate No. 4784,

Defendant V.I. Krivosheev,

Under Secretary Mishchuk I.A.,

Having examined in open court the criminal case No. 1-268/10 in respect of:

Krivosheev Vyacheslav Igorevich, born on April 24, 1990 in Pikalevo, Boksitogorsk district, Leningrad region, citizen of the Russian Federation, with incomplete secondary education, single, without children, not working, registered and living in Pikalevo, Leningrad region, down the street 5-microdistrict, d. 2 apt. 17, not previously convicted,

In custody on the present criminal case not contained,

Accused of committing a crime under Art. 167 part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,

SET UP:

defendant Krivosheev The.AND. committed intentional damage to someone else's property, committed out of hooligan motives, resulting in significant damage to a citizen.

defendant Krivosheev The.AND. On March 31, 2010, at about 10:40 p.m., being at house 39 on Avrova Street, Petrodvorets district of St. Petersburg, out of hooligan motives, expressing clear disrespect for society in the person of the victim Serbina E.V., committed actions aimed at damaging the property of the latter, jumped on the roof of a Volkswagen Passat car (GNZ T322 MS 98) parked near the indicated house, deforming the roof, hood, front right fender, front right bumper molding, which caused material damage to the victim, formed by the cost of spare parts parts in the amount of 71,412 rubles, the cost of restoration work in the amount of 34,920 rubles, the cost of paintwork and other Supplies in the amount of 16,650 rubles, and in total for a total amount of 122,982 rubles, which is significant for her.

Being questioned at the hearing, the defendant Krivosheev The.AND. He fully admitted his guilt and explained that on March 31, 2010, he quarreled with his girlfriend in the evening, was in a state of extreme intoxication, since he used alcohol with his friends Pakhteev and Goneeva. He does not remember the events of the crime he committed. He and Pakhteev escorted Goneeva to the bus stop, Pakhteev and Goneeva walked a little ahead, and he, passing by house 39 on Avrova Street in the Petrodvorets district of St. Petersburg, climbed onto a car parked nearby and began to jump on it. Having made several jumps, he got down from the car, began to catch up with his friends, when he was detained by a previously unknown witness A.N. Serbin, who held him until the police arrived. He explains his actions by a state of severe alcohol intoxication and a sudden anger at a girl who quarreled with him. Recognizes that all damage to the car victim Serbina E.The. formed from his actions.

In addition to a full personal confession, the guilt of the defendant is confirmed by the totality of evidence examined during the trial in the criminal case:

The testimony of the victim Serbina E.V., given during the trial, that she lives in the apartment 6, 39 on Avrova Street, Petrodvortsovy district of St. Petersburg. She owns a silver Volkswagen Passat car with a state license plate T 322 MS 98, which, under a power of attorney issued by her, is driven by her son, Serbin Alexander Nikolaevich. On March 31, 2010, at about 10:00 p.m., her son came to visit her in the indicated car, left the car near the front door of the indicated house, while the car was visible from the window of the apartment. About half an hour after their son's arrival, while they were in the kitchen, they heard a terrible rumble from the street, and looking out the window, they saw a young man jumping on the roof of their car. Serbin A.N. immediately ran out of the apartment to the street, and after a short time she ran after him. Going out into the street, she saw that Serbin A.N. keeps on the ground young man who jumped on the roof of their car. Next to the car were also unfamiliar guys and girls who were clearly with a young man jumping on her car. The young man, who was held by Serbin A.N., tried to resist the latter, and the girl tried to inflict bodily harm on her - Serbina E.V. Having examined her car, she saw damage on it: a dent in the roof, a dent in the front right fender, a dent in the hood, a crack in the left molding of the front right bumper, the front registration plate was torn off, lying near the car. The actions of Krivosheeva A.N. she suffered damage in the total amount of 122,982 rubles (the cost according to the certificate of the service center for spare parts and car repair work), which is significant for her, since she has wages in the amount of about 4,000 rubles, and a total income of 20,000 rubles. She bought a car on credit, which she has not repaid to date. She has no doubts that the detainee V.I. Krivosheev caused the damages to the car, because at the time of her son's arrival at her home, there were no damages of this kind on the car. She has no material claims against the defendant, since the car is insured under the CASCO system, and she intends to contact the insurance company to receive the appropriate payments.

The testimony of witness Serbina A.GN, given during the trial, to the effect that Serbina E.The. is his mother. His mother entrusted him with driving her car "Volkswagen Passat" of silver color with the state license plate T 322 MS 98. He lives separately from his mother, on March 31, 2010 at about 22:00 he came to visit his mother at home - d. 39 k.6 on Avrova street in the Petrodvortsovy district of St. Petersburg. He parked the car next to the front door of the specified house, so that it was visible from the window of his apartment. About half an hour after his arrival, he suddenly heard a roar coming from under the windows of the front door. Looking out the window, he saw two young people he did not know before and a girl. One of the young people was jumping on the roof of his mother's car, next to the car there was a second young man and a girl. When he ran out into the street, the young people managed to move away from the car, he detained the young man who was jumping on the roof of the car, the girl and the second person were nearby. Serbina E.V. also left the house, together they examined the damage to the car. The detainee, as his surname later turned out, Krivosheev, resisted him, and the young man and the girl tried to assist him in this. He managed to keep Krivosheev until the police arrived. The police officers examined the car of his mother, detained V.I. Krivosheev. and his acquaintances. In the process of inspecting the car, he found damage to the car body that was not there before the incident, namely: there was a dent on the roof, there was a dent on the front right fender, there was a dent on the hood, a dent on the front fender, a crack in the front bumper molding, a front registration plate was torn off, was next to the car. He has no doubt that all the indicated damages on the car were caused by Krivosheev. At the time of arrival at the mother's house, the car had minor dents caused by falling ice chips, which were previously recorded by the district police officer for the Petrodvortsovy district of St. Petersburg when checking on his application. The damage caused by V.I. Krivosheev, his mother’s car, was examined by the service center employees, who determined the cost of the restoration repair during a direct inspection of the car.

The testimony of witness Dikushin A.A., a policeman-driver of the police department of the Internal Affairs Directorate for the Petrodvortsovy district of St. entered the service in the squad GZ - 3921, together with the driver Rakimov V.M. On March 31, 2010, at about 22:00, a message was received that at the house 39 on the street. Avrov in the Petrodvortsovy district of St. Petersburg there is a fight. He went to the house at the indicated address, where Serbin A.N. turned to him near the front door of this house. and Serbina E.V., who directly pointed to an unknown young man, whose identity was subsequently Vyacheslav Igorevich Krivosheev. At the same time, Serbin A.N. and Serbina E.V. reported that Krivosheev The.AND. damaged their car by jumping on it - on the roof and on the hood. Having examined the Volkswagen Passat car, which belonged to the indicated persons, he saw that the car was really damaged, and detained V.I. -Petersburg.

Testimony of witness Skvortsov A.V., given during the preliminary investigation, that he lives at the address in the house 5 kv.20 on the street Traveler Kozlov Petrodvortsovy district of St. On March 31, 2010, at about 10:00 pm, he went outside to walk his dog. Passing in the square d. 3 on the street. Dashkevich of the Petrodvorets district of St. Petersburg, heard a loud bang from the other side of the street. When I turned to the sound of cotton, I saw that on one of the cars parked in the courtyard of 39 on the street. Avrova of the Petrodvortsovy district of St. Petersburg, a young man stands on the hood, jumps on it, and then slides down the hood to the ground, while tearing off the license plate of the indicated car. He was about 10-15 meters from this car, he did not hear the alarm. Once on the ground, this young man, laughing loudly, ran up to a young man and a girl walking in front of him about 15 meters away, they told him something that he did not hear, but they did not laugh, they behaved calmly. Then the three of them went towards Erlerovsky Boulevard in the Petrodvortsovy district of St. Petersburg. When they passed about 30 meters from the specified car, from the front d. 39 along the street. The author, in front of whom the car was standing, ran out a young man unfamiliar to him, who caught up with two young people and a girl, grabbed a young man jumping on the hood of the car by the jacket collar, tried to bring him to the car. The young man who damaged the car began to resist, as a result of which they both fell on the lawn, so that the young man who was detaining another young man who damaged the car ended up on top. Almost immediately, a woman previously unfamiliar to him ran out of the specified front door, who began to shout that she would call the police. About 5-8 minutes later the police arrived. The owner of the car pointed out to the police officers one of the young people who damaged his car, he did not hear anything else. After the incident, he went home, he was the only witness to what happened. l.d. 60-63)

Testimony of witness Goneeva A.A., given during the preliminary investigation and read out during the trial, that she lives at the address: St. Petersburg, st. Pionerstroya, 7/1, apt. 13. March 31, 2010 at about 22:00, Pakhteev G.A. together with Krivosheev V.I. accompanied her to the bus stop as she was about to go home. When they passed in one of the yards on the street. Avrova of the Petrodvortsovy district of St. Petersburg, whose house number she does not know, she and Pakhteev G.A. walked side by side, Krivosheev V.I. lagged behind them. They didn't pay attention to it, didn't turn around. Suddenly, she heard three thuds that she didn't look back at. After some time, V.I. Krivosheev caught up with them, did not say anything, behaved calmly. Pakhteev G.A. asked V.I. Krivosheev why he damaged the car, what exactly the latter answered, she does not remember. After that, a previously unknown young man caught up with them, grabbed V.I. Krivosheev. and knocked him to the ground, holding him until the police arrived. About 10 minutes later the police arrived. Her, Pakhteeva G.A., Krivosheeva V.I. and a young man who detained V.I. Krivosheev. They took them to the police station, where they took explanations from them, after which they released them. (case file 69-72)

Minutes of the adoption of an oral statement dated April 21, 2010, from which it is seen that Serbina E.V. asks to prosecute an unknown person who, on March 31, 2010, at about 22:00, damaged her Volkswagen Passat car (GNZ T 322 MS 98), parked near the house 39 on the street. Avrov. The damage from damage to the car is 122,982 rubles, which is significant for her. (case sheet 12).

The protocol of the inspection of the scene of the incident and the photo table to it, from which it is seen that the investigator of the OD at the Internal Affairs Directorate for the Petrodvortsovy district of St. Petersburg Saveskova S.V. On April 1, 2010, in the period from 00:10 to 00:30, in the presence of attesting witnesses with the participation of a specialist, a Volkswagen Passat car parked at house 39 on Avrova Street of the Petrodvortsovy District was inspected, on which the above damage was established (case sheet 13 -17)

Certificate stating that Serbina E.The. receives a monthly salary of 4,000 rubles (case sheet 26)

Certificate dated April 1, 2010, confirming the cost of restoring the car of the victim Serbina E.V. - from which it is seen that the cost of spare parts for a Volkswagen Passat car (min. 322 MS98) is 71,412 rubles, the cost of work is 34,920 rubles, the cost of paint and varnish and other consumables is 16,650 rubles. l.d. 23).

The protocol of the seizure, from which it is seen that the investigator of the Investigative Department at the Internal Affairs Directorate for the Petrodvortsovy District of St. Petersburg V.V. Kuchmasov on June 18, 2010, in the period from 20:05 to 20:20, in the presence of attesting witnesses, seized a Volkswagen Passat car (St. n.z. T 322 MS 98) at the witness Serbin A.N. l.d. 113-115).

The inspection protocol and a photo table to it, from which it is seen that the investigator of the Investigative Department at the Internal Affairs Directorate for the Petrodvorets district of St. Petersburg, Kuchmasov V.V. n.z. T 322 MS 98) of silver color and it was established that the hood of the indicated car was deformed, the front registration plate was torn off, the front right fender was damaged and the roof was deformed, in the form of a dent., by the decisions of the same investigator of June 18, 2010 on recognition car material evidence and attaching it as such to the case file, and the return of the car witness Serbinu A.GN. for safekeeping, a receipt of the victim on the acceptance of physical evidence for safekeeping. l.d. 116-121, 122, 123.124)

A copy of the resolution of the local authorized representative of the MOB ATC for the Petrodvortsovy district of St. Petersburg Fokina D.A. dated March 21, 2010 based on the material of the audit KUSP-2869, from which he sees that in the course of the A.N. As of March 21, 2010, the Volkswagen Passat (GNZ T 322 MS 98) was found to have damage that did not match the damage found on the car during its inspection on April 1, 2010.

Assessing the evidence collected in the case, the court finds them relevant, admissible and reliable, in their entirety sufficient to resolve the present criminal case, and the guilt of the defendant Krivosheeva The.AND. proven.

The actions of the defendant Krivosheeva The.AND. the court qualifies under Art. 167 h.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as intentional damage to someone else's property - i.e. actions that resulted in the impossibility of further full use of property, the functional properties of which can be replenished by repair, committed out of hooligan motives, resulting in significant damage to the citizen, since Krivosheev The.AND. expressing clear disrespect for society in the person of the victim Serbina E.V., having the intent to damage the property of the latter, jumped on the roof of the car belonging to the latter, damaging the said car, which caused the victim material damage, which is significant for her.

The court found that the defendant committed these acts in public place, in the presence of other persons, thereby violating public order, demonstrating clear disrespect for society in the person of the victim Serbina E.The. committed by Krivosheev A.I. out of hooligan motives.

The court has no reason to doubt the amount of damage caused to the victim, since the cost of the restoration repair was set by the service center at the request of the victim during a direct inspection of the car.

In accordance with paragraph 2 of the Notes to Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation significant damage to a citizen for the purposes of including Art. 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is determined taking into account the property status of the victim, and cannot be less than 2500 rubles.

The court found that the actions of the defendant victim Serbina E.The. cause damage in the amount of 122 982 rubles. Taking into account the property status of the victim, who has a salary at her main place of work in the amount of 4,000 rubles, and a total income of about 20,000 rubles, taking into account the significance of the damaged property - the only one in the family of the victim vehicle acquired on credit, the court concludes that the damage caused to the victim by the actions of the defendant is significant for her.

Assessing the testimony of the victim Serbina E.The., witnesses Serbina A.GN, Dikushina A.GN, Skvortsova A.The Goneeva A.A. during the trial, the court finds relevant, reliable, admissible. Grounds for slander Krivosheeva The.AND. The court does not consider these persons.

In accordance with Art. 252 part 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation trial is carried out only in relation to the defendant and only on the charges brought against him, therefore the testimony of the victim Serbina E.The., witness Serbina A.GN, witness Goneeva A.A. and witness Skortsova A.The. regarding the actions of Goneeva A.A. in relation to the victim Serbina E.The. the court assesses as not attributable to the stated charge evidence.

The materials of the case, the results of investigative actions, are relevant, reliable and admissible evidence.

The testimony of the defendant Krivosheeva The.AND. who fully admitted his guilt and sincerely repented of his deed, the court assesses as reliable, since they are confirmed by the examined evidence.

When imposing a punishment, the court takes into account the nature and degree of social danger of the crime committed by the defendant, his personality, circumstances mitigating the punishment, as well as the impact of the punishment imposed on his correction and the living conditions of his family.

defendant Krivosheev The.AND. committed a moderate crime.

The court sees no aggravating circumstances for the defendant.

However, as mitigating the guilt of the defendant Krivosheeva The.AND. circumstances the court considers, that Krivosheev The.AND. we have not previously judged, he fully admitted his guilt and repented of his deed, apologized to the victim, which were accepted by the latter.

When imposing a sentence, the court also takes into account the opinion of the victim, who asked for a lenient sentence for the defendant.

In view of the foregoing, the court concludes that the correction of the defendant is possible without real isolation from society and assigns him a sentence of imprisonment, conditionally, a probationary period in accordance with Art. 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The Court finds no grounds for application against Krivosheeva A.AND. Art. 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

When appointing a suspended sentence, the court considers it necessary to impose on Krivosheeva The.AND. the obligation during the probationary period to appear monthly at the body that carries out the correction of convicts, not to change their place of residence without notifying this body.

Material evidence - car Volkswagen Passat "(g.n.z. T 322 MS 98) - transferred for safekeeping to the witness Serbin A.N., is to be left with the latter, while Serbin A.N. should be released from the obligation to keep it.

Procedural costs in the present criminal case in the amount of 596 rubles 74 kopecks in the form of labor costs for the lawyer's lawyer who defended Krivosheev The.AND. by appointment, subject to recovery from Krivosheeva The.AND. to the state income, taking into account the fact that Krivosheev The.AND. able to work and has no dependents.

Based on the above, guided by Article.Article. 307-309 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, court

SENTENCED:

Krivosheev Vyacheslav Igorevich found guilty of committing a crime under Art. 167 h.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and sentence him to ONE year and SIX months in prison.

In accordance with Art. 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation appointed Krivosheev The.AND. The sentence is suspended for two years on probation.

Assign to V.I. Krivosheev the following duties during the probationary period:

Appear on a monthly basis for registration with the body that carries out the correction of convicts;
not to change the place of residence without notifying the body that carries out the correction of convicts.

preventive measure Krivosheeva The.The. in the form of a written undertaking not to leave and proper behavior to cancel after the entry into force of this judgment.

Procedural costs in the form of a sum of money 596 rubles 74 kopecks, paid to the lawyer who defended Krivosheeva The.AND. by appointment, recover from Krivosheeva The.AND. to state revenue.

Material evidence - a Volkswagen Passat car (min. no. T 322 MS 98), transferred to A.N. Serbin for safekeeping. put at the latter, releasing it from the obligation of further responsible storage.

The verdict can be appealed to the St. Petersburg City Court within 10 days from the date of its issuance.

If a cassation appeal is filed, the convict has the right to petition for his participation in the consideration of the criminal case by the cassation court.