The father of three children, who did not show up for duty due to the death of his ex-wife, was sentenced to 4 years

The Supreme Court sentenced a military man and father of three children to 4 years in prison, who did not return to the front after treatment.

The man was supposed to return to duty in June 2022, but disappeared for 4 months.

According to him, he wanted to settle family matters, because the mother of his daughter from his first marriage had died.

Then the man himself surrendered to the law enforcement officers and repented, writes “Judicial and legal newspaper”. And after an almost 2-year process, he received a real term.

The district court sentenced the man to a suspended sentence, and the appellate court sentenced him to a real prison term (4 years). Ultimately, the Criminal Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court upheld the appeal verdict.

Such a decision caused a mixed reaction in the network. In particular, on the sentence reacted military servicewoman Yaryna Chornoguz.

“If it’s true – that a military volunteer, who survived the injury, father of three children, was sentenced to 4 years in prison for going to settle the case of taking care of his daughter from his first marriage, whose mother died – this is simply beyond the bounds of common sense. To me it is interesting to read about the judges who made such a sentence. Who in their families is at war, for how long, and so on.” she wrote.

The human rights center for servicemen “Princip” became interested in the case. However lawyers have so far refused to comment on the situationbecause they need time to study the case.

What happened?

The man on trial is a native of Zaporozhye. Almost from the first days of the full-scale war, he voluntarily joined the army, serving as a rifleman in a rifle company.

The man is married and has three minor children to support. His ex-wife died, so his 7-year-old daughter from his first marriage was left without a mother.

At the end of March 2022, the fighter received a shrapnel gunshot wound to his right thigh. After treatment, he continued his military service, but later the condition of the wound worsened, so the man needed surgical intervention.

He was on sick leave again, but on the appointed date, June 16, he did not return to the place of duty and disappeared for 4 months.

On November 4, the man surrendered himself to law enforcement officers. At the trial, he pleaded guilty and repented. The serviceman explained that he left the service due to a coincidence of family circumstances – his ex-wife died, so he planned to issue custody of his daughter to his current wife and treat his injuries.

“He had to return to the unit on June 16 of last year. Due to a coincidence of family circumstances, he did not show up to the place of duty, he had problems with alcohol.

After regaining consciousness, he voluntarily turned himself in to the law enforcement agencies. He sincerely repents of what he has done, asks to be given a chance to continue defending the Motherland”– says the verdict of the court of first instance.

Initially, the Zavodsky District Court sentenced him to 5 years in prison, but replaced the sentence with 2 years of probation.

The court took into account sincere remorse, maintenance of a minor daughter from a previous marriage and two minor children from a new marriage, state of health and other extenuating circumstances.

However, the appellate court disagreed with the verdict and imposed a real prison term of 4 years.

The military “committed desertion in the conditions of martial law in the presence of a direct threat to the national security of the state.” And a conditional term, in particular, would allow him not to serve in the future.

“The panel of judges considers it necessary to note that the court, having released the accused from serving a sentence with probation and imposed on him, including, the obligation to periodically appear for registration at the authorized body on probation issues at his place of residence, thereby made it possible for the accused to realize his goal of committing the crime – to avoid fulfilling his constitutional duty to protect the Motherland in the future”. – says the verdict.

The judges also decided that the court of first instance unjustifiably recognized “sincere remorse” as a mitigating circumstance:

“The accused did not admit his guilt during the trial, he was wanted by the pre-trial investigation body for a considerable time, and only after examining all the evidence, realizing the inevitability of the punishment, he changed his position and declared that he fully admits his guilt and sincerely repents”.

The court of the second instance also believes that a suspended sentence can show other soldiers a way to avoid real punishment for voluntarily leaving the unit.

“The court of first instance did not take into account that, according to part 2 of Article 50 of the Criminal Code, the purpose of punishment is, among other things, to prevent the commission of new criminal offenses both by convicted persons and by other persons.

However, having released the accused from the prescribed punishment for committing the crime stipulated by Article 408 of the Criminal Code, the court in this way actually demonstrated to other persons that they are currently protecting the state sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, the possibility and method of evading such dutywhich in the conditions of martial law constitutes a special public danger”, – said the verdict.

The court decided the fate of the husband’s minor daughter in a separate case resolutionsasking the district administration Zaporizhzhia City Council take care of the custody of the child (by relatives or relevant institutions).

Then this sentence was appealed in the Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court. He didn’t appreciate it the punishment imposed by the Court of Appeal as too severe.

“The punishment imposed by the appellate court is based on the provisions of Articles 50 and 65 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, corresponds to the principles of justice, proportionality and individualization, and is necessary for the correction of the convicted person and prevention of his committing new crimes”the resolution says.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the actual term of 4 years behind bars.

We will remind, earlier in Volyn, a man who refused to serve due to religious beliefs was sentenced to 3 years in prison.