THE DOCUMENT WAS ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED BY:


NATIONAL OFFICE FOR THE JUDICIARY

District Court of Gödöllő 1

Case No. 5.B.241/2018/98




At the continuous public trial held in Gödöllő on 6th November 2019 and 26th February 2020 with regard to Case No. 5.B.241/2018, the District Court of Gödöllő has delivered the following

j u d g e m e n t :

Defendant who is not detained, and is currently staying in an unknown place,

Ákos SZABÓ was born in Gödöllő on 14. 08. 1968,

mother’s maiden name: Katalin T., ID card number: 367550PA; last known place of residence: 2100 Gödöllő,

Hungarian citizen

i s g u i l t y :

– of 1 count of the offence of embezzlement (section 372 (1) and (3) a) of the Criminal Code).

Therefore the court – in his absence, at the proposal of the prosecutor – imposes a sentence of imprisonment of 1 (one) year on him.

The court suspends the execution of the imprisonment for a probation period of 2 (two) years.

The imprisonment – if it is executed – shall be executed in a correctional institution.

The court establishes that defendant Ákos Szabó may be released on parole from imprisonment – if it is executed – after he has served two thirds of the term of imprisonment.


The court exempts defendant Ákos Szabó preliminarily from the disadvantages associated with any prior conviction.


The court orders that the civil claim of István D., the aggrieved party, be directed to other legal way.

The court obliges the defendant to pay the State the criminal costs of 28,800 (twenty-eight thousand and eight hundred) Hungarian forints incurred during the proceeding.

Defendant Ákos Szabó may appeal against this judgement within 8 days of its delivery by public notice; after the judgement has become final, the defendant and the defence counsel may - within 30 days of becoming aware of the judgement - make a motion for a revision of the trial.


J u s t i f i c a t i o n

I.

Defendant Ákos Szabó was accused of 1 count of the offence of embezzlement in Indictment No. B.3851/2017/3-I of the Prosecutor’s Office of Gödöllő (Section 372 (1) and (3) a) of the Criminal Code).


The prosecutor who was present at the trial proposed suspended imprisonment – as equally set out in the Indictment – with regard to the defendant.


II.

In the course of conducting the proceeding for the taking of evidence the court stated the following fact of the case:

The exact personal circumstances of defendant Ákos Szabó are not known, due to the fact that the court proceeded against him in his absence, at the prosecutor’s proposal.

He had a criminal record: The Town Court of Balassagyarmat in its Judgement No. 2.B.340/2012/7 and the Regional Court of Balassagyarmat in its Final Judgement No.7.Bf.269/2012/15 dated 4th March 2013 sentenced him for the offence of theft for imprisonment of 1 year suspended in its execution for a probation period of 2 years.


Defendant Ákos Szabó signed an agency agreement with the head of Galga Udvarház Kft, István D, on 02 November 2017 to carry out transportation tasks specified individually for him. In the framework of that agreement, on 02 November 2017 István D. entrusted defendant Ákos Szabó to purchase two Hyundai Coupe cars in Germany and transport them home. For this purpose István Dudás handed over 2550 euros to Ákos Szabó, which included the purchase price of the cars and also the petrol costs of the travel and transportation.

However, defendant Ákos Szabó did not perform the task specified in the agreement, and though he travelled to Germany in the truck assigned to him, he did not buy the cars, and did not transport them home. The trailer that he had used was later left by him in Gödöllő in the parking lot of the Penny store, then he became unreachable for the aggrieved party. Defendant Ákos Szabó did not settle the account towards the aggrieved party for the 1700 euros intended for the purchase of the cars from the cash handed over, and he disposed of the money as his own and appropriated it.

The damage caused by this act amounts to 528,700 Hungarian forints. During the proceeding the defendant paid 546,936 Hungarian forints to the aggrieved party, so the damage caused was recovered, but the aggrieved party submitted an additional civil claim related to the ancillary costs.


III.

The court based the sentencing fact of the case on the following evidences:

official complaint, supplement to the official complaint, police reports, testimonies of witnesses István Dudás, Norbert T.and József V, receipt notice, criminal record sheet, other documents, and partly the testimonies of defendant Ákos Szabó.


The defendant pleaded not guilty during the proceeding. Neither during the investigation nor in front of the court (at the preparatory session) did he factually dispute the indicated amount but according to his statement he did not appropriate it. According to the essence of his testimony he only admitted civil liability and he actually repaid the amount.


The court did not accept the defence presented by the defendant with a view to the following:

It can be stated based on the testimonies of the witnesses heard during the investigation and the judicial phase, and other documentary evidences that defendant Ákos Szabó did not perform the task included in the assignment described in the fact of the case. It is an indisputable fact that he travelled to Germany in the truck assigned to him, but he did not buy the cars concerned and did not transport them home. The trailer that he had used was left by him in Gödöllő in the parking lot of the Penny store, then he became unreachable for the aggrieved party. Defendant Ákos Szabó did not settle the account towards the aggrieved party for the 1700 euros intended for the purchase of the cars from the cash handed over, and he disposed of the money as his own and appropriated it.

The damage caused by this act amounts to 528,700 Hungarian forints. During the proceeding in November 2018 the defendant paid 546,936 forints to the aggrieved party by court deposit, and the amount was transferred to the aggrieved party or the person indicated by him, so the damage caused was recovered.

On the grounds of the above, the court found it demonstrated beyond any doubt that the defendant committed the offence attributed to him.


IV.


With his conduct described in the fact of the case the defendant constituted 1 count of the offence that breaches section 372 (1) of the Civil Code, which is qualified as embezzlement as per paragraph a) of subsection (3).


With regard to the defendant the court evaluated the relatively long time that had elapsed since the committing of the act as a mitigating circumstance, however, it has an insignificant weight considering that the excessive length of the proceeding was partly due to the fact that the defendant was staying in an unknown place and did not appear at the hearings.

Further mitigating circumstance is provided by the factual confession of the defendant and also by the fact that the defendant repaid the damage.

The court considered the defendant’s criminal record as an aggravating circumstance and a further aggravating circumstance is that he was convicted for a similar type of offence, i.e. an offence against property.


Based on the joint examination of all these circumstances of culpability listed and the act itself, furthermore of the danger that the perpetrator represents to society and the degree of culpability, the court has come to the conclusion that it is justified to impose imprisonment on the defendant.


The defendant committed one count of criminal offence which carries imprisonment from 3 months to 3 years.

The court shall set out factually in the justification of the judgement that it is a general rule within the meaning of sections 80 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Code that the penalty shall be imposed in the


framework provided for in the law, keeping in mind its intended objective (to prevent – in the interest of the protection of society – the perpetrator or any other person from committing an act of crime) so that it is consistent with the severity of the criminal offence, with the degree of culpability, the danger that the perpetrator represents to society and with other mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

It is also indisputable that when a sentence of imprisonment is delivered for a fixed term, the median of the prescribed scale of penalties shall be applied. (The median shall be established so that half of the difference between the lowest and the highest penalties shall be added to the lowest penalty.)


At the same time it shall also be kept in mind that in order to reduce crime it is most purposeful to impose an individualised sentence that is in proportion to the act of crime, and is adjusted to the personality and living conditions of the perpetrator. It would be an excessively severe penalty of deterring and retaliating character for the defendant – who has actually reimbursed the damage – to apply either the median or impose the executable imprisonment.

Therefore the court – in the same way as proposed by the prosecutor – deviated from the median for the benefit of the defendant (1 year 7 months and 15 days imprisonment) and saw an opportunity for imposing a shorter term imprisonment.

The court is of the opinion that a 1-year imprisonment is the right term of penalty for the defendant.*


The execution of imprisonment shall be in a correctional institution pursuant to paragraph a) of section 37 (2) of the Criminal Code.


Based on the joint examination of all the circumstances of culpability, the court has come to the conclusion that there is a possibility for suspending the execution of imprisonment against the defendant pursuant to sections 85 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Code. The term of suspension is also adapted to the circumstances of culpability.


The court has established that if the execution of imprisonment is ordered, the defendant may be released on parole – pursuant to section 38 (1) and (2) a) of the Criminal Code – after having served two thirds of the sentence.


The court – accepting the proposal made by the counsel for defence – found an opportunity for relieving defendant Ákos Szabó preliminarily from the disadvantages associated with any prior conviction. (Section 102 (1) of the Criminal Code)


The court has ordered that the civil claim submitted against the defendant – the exact determination of the additional amount demanded by the aggrieved party would lead to further delay of the case due to the ancillary nature of the amount – be directed to other legal way according to paragraph l) of section 560 (1) of Act XC of 2017 on Criminal Proceedings.


The court has obliged the defendant to pay the State the criminal costs incurred during the proceeding in connection with the offence committed by him (section 574 (1) of the Act on Criminal Proceedings).


During the proceeding, in the framework of the court proceeding, the defendant was staying in an unknown place, therefore the court proceeded in his absence at the proposal of the prosecutor according to Chapter CI of the Act on Criminal Proceedings.


Gödöllő, 26 February 2020

District Court of Gödöllő 5

Case No. 5.B.241/2018/98


Dr András Szedmák sgd.

judge


The judgement shall become final on 26th March 2020. Gödöllő, 30 March 2020

Dr András Sz.

sgd. judge

In witness thereof: