Case Study

Facts:
Cristian Emanoil on the night from 25 to 26 of july 2010, with a prior
agreement, together with other 3 persons, illegally and without the consent
of the houseowners, perpetrated into the house of Smirnov Galina and
Smirnov Nicolae. When the perpetrators were asked to leave the house, they
began to beat the owners with a wooden stick especially adapted, in the
presence of 3 children. To Smirnov spouses were caused insignificant injuries.
Beating and slapping Smirnov G, they kidnapped her, contrary to her will put
in the trunk of the car and transported her into a house from another village.
There by threatening her with murder and physical scuffle and threatening
her family members, calling her husband and threatening on the phone too,
were asking for a sum of money that was allegedly taken illegaly by the
Smirnov spouses from Cozma brothers.
Law:
Actions of Cristian Emanoil were qualified according to article 179 (2)
domicile violation committed with violence ori threatening with violence,
article 155- threatening with murder or with grevious physical injuries, and
article 164 (2), e), f) kidnapping committed by 2 or more persons and
frommaterial interest.
Grounds:
The court didnt argued its decision regarding to the qualification. Thus
taking into account that the infringers entered into the house applying
violence these actions were classiefied accroding to article 179 (2). Because
Smirnov Galina was kidnapped by 3 persons and they were asking money
from her and her husband it was considered as kidnapping committed by 2
or more persons from material interest. Becasu during the kidnapping, Galina
and her husban were threatened with murder and seriously injuries, which
acoording to the court were taken seriously and real by the victims these
actions shall be qualified according to article 155.
Punishment:
In the corut of first instance Cristian Emanoil wasnt held liable for crimes
commited in article 179 (2) and 155, because he concluded a reconcilliation
agreement between him and the victims. For kidnapping he was punsihed
with 4 years of imprisonment, his punishment being suspended according to
art. 90 Criminal Code, with a probation term of 1 year. This decision was
appealed by the prosecutor, stating that though there was signed and
agrreement of recognising the guilt and of reconcilliation criminal law shall
realize its aim. Appeal Court decided that the groundings of the prosecutor

are not relevant and the decision of first instance was kept and considered
legally issued.