The Court of Appeals upheld the verdict of the Higher Court in Podgorica, which in June found R. Ć. guilty of the criminal offense of unlawful sexual conduct and sentenced him to five years in prison, including time spent in detention.
The defendant's defense attorneys filed an appeal against the first-instance verdict, but the Court of Appeals rejected it as unfounded on November 4th.
"According to the finding of the Court of Appeal, the first instance court, in a valid manner, in a legally conducted procedure, established to a certain extent all the facts necessary for both the proper assessment of the existence of the offense and for determining the guilt of the accused, while correctly applying the Criminal Code to his actions, which is why the allegations raised in the appeals of the defendant's defense attorneys that the operative part of the verdict is incomprehensible, contradictory to itself and the reasons for the verdict, and that the reasons given are completely unclear and significantly contradictory," the Court of Appeals said in a statement.
It is added that this court also examined the contested verdict in the part of the decision on the sentence upon appeals by the defendant's defense attorneys, and found that the first instance court correctly determined and sufficiently evaluated all circumstances that had an impact on the choice of criminal sanction and that were significant in determining whether the sentence was higher or lower.
"When determining the sentence for the accused, the first instance court considered the fact that he was a person with no previous convictions as a mitigating circumstance, while it considered the persistence he displayed on the critical occasion in his inappropriate actions towards the victim as an aggravating circumstance, while it did not correctly consider the fact that the accused is an elderly person as a mitigating circumstance. In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, the imposed prison sentence represents an adequate punishment for the gravity of the criminal offense and the degree of guilt of the accused, so it is to be expected that it will achieve the purpose of punishment within the general purpose of imposing criminal sanctions," the Court of Appeal concluded.
Bonus video:
