Imprisonment for 7 years by former Interior Kostadin Stoyanov caused by driving death of 11-month Krasimira Kaneva

 

 

By Decision № 410 / 01.11.2016, the cassation delivered in a criminal case of a general nature (k.n.o.h.d.) № 1262/2015, the three-member panel of the Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC) remains Court of Appeal - c. Burgas, which amended the verdict in n.o.h.d. № 95/2015, the District Court - c. Burgas.

In sentencing the defendant Kostadin Stoyanov is guilty of an offense under Art. 343, para. 3 b. "B", Ex. 2 of the Criminal Code (causing 09/11/2014, at p. Krushevets manslaughter walkway, drunk and after using drugs when driving), he was sentenced to eleven years imprisonment and deprivation of the right to drive for a period of thirteen years. The decision of the Burgas Court of Appeal recognized the defendant innocent and acquitted of having committed the offense of walkway. Decreased is imposed on the defendant Stoyanov imprisonment from eleven to seven years and deprivation of the right to drive has been reduced from thirteen to nine years.

The SCC case is brought by the defendant Kostadin Stoyanov and private prosecutors Krassimir Kanev and Nonka Borisova (parents of the victim - 11-month Krasimira Kaneva). The Court does not accept the arguments in the appeal of private prosecutors for violation of the law, according to which the "wrong part of aggravating circumstances appreciated by the appellate court as such, included in the qualifying circumstances particularly serious case." According to the Chamber legal and regular are finding that in the case of aggravating circumstances "drunk" and "after using drugs" that link the qualifying sign "particularly serious case." "It is known that extremely high degree of public danger of the act is determined in view of the number and importance of admission by the perpetrator violations of traffic rules, the number and importance of the qualifying offense circumstances and severity of the occurred harmful consequences" - wrote supreme judges, accept that there is no underestimation of aggravating circumstances in determining the amount of the penalty.

In its examination of the contested decision SCC found that there were pointing in the cassation appeal of the defendant Kostadin Stoyanov significant procedural violations and violations of the law. "Instance judicial courts are collected as provided by PPC procedural order necessary and sufficient amount of evidence and evidence. In subsequent extremely detailed analysis of the appellate court has reached conclusions on the facts as these, were established in the first instance verdict. Particular attention is paid to qualifying circumstances - "drunk and drug use", with arguments based on the evidence base that SCC fully shares "- wrote in his reasons the judges. With proper and consistent findings law is applied properly. The grievance manifest injustice of the punishment. Correct is the conclusion of the appellate court that the dangerousness of the accused is higher, in view of their given duties in monitoring compliance with the law as a police officer.