Omsk Regional Court. Judicial section G.

REFERENCE

according to the results of the study of the judicial practice of consideration by the courts of criminal cases of deviation from administrative supervision or a repeated non-compliance with the court established by the court in accordance with federal law Restrictions or restrictions for 2014 and 2015.

In accordance with the instructions of the Kirov Regional Court, the Leninsky District Court of Kirov held a summary of judicial practice in criminal cases on deviation from administrative supervision or a repeated non-compliance with the judgment established by the court in accordance with the Federal Law of the restriction or restrictions considered by the Leninsky District Court of Kirov in the period 2014 and 2015 years.

Just for the specified period in Leninsky district Court Kirov received 27 cases with respect to 27 persons, were convicted of 24 persons, with respect to 3 persons, criminal proceedings were returned to the prosecutor.

At the same time, the reasons for the return of criminal cases, the prosecutor was violation of the claims of criminal procedure legislation in the preparation of an indictment, which served as an obstacle to the court decision on the merits on the basis of an indictment.

By the years, the statistics of consideration of cases under Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is as follows.

For special order The decision-making of the judgment over the above periods with sentencing was considered 20 cases against 20 persons; When considering a criminal case with sentencing in common order Considered 4 cases with respect to 4 persons.

Of them were sentenced:

Imprisonment in relation to 19 persons, including those with the appointment of additional penalties in the form of a fine for 2 persons;

Correctional work in relation to 1 person;

Mandatory work in respect of 4 persons.

At the same time for the specified period of time in Kirovsky regional Court 11 sentences were appealed against 11 persons, left unchanged - 9 sentences; Changed - 2 sentences.

1. Are the courts arose issues related to the establishment of signs of a crime subject provided for in Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation?

When surveying judges, in whose production these cases were found, it was established that any difficulties associated with the establishment of signs of a subject of the crime provided for by Art. 314.1 of the Criminal Code, did not arise.

2. What an act of guilty of which administrative supervision was established, qualified by the courts as non-profit without good reasons To the elected place of residence or stay? What reasons were recognized by the court respect?

In the practice of the Leninsky District Court, Kirov was a single case when the bodies of the dignity of the perpetrator were qualified as non-profitless reasons for the chosen place of residence or stay.

In particular, such is a criminal case on charges (Case No. 11-215 / 2015) in committing a crime provided for by Art. 314.1 h. Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by the Federal Law of 01.01.2001).

However, by Decree of the Leninsky District Court of Kirov dated January 1, 2001, the criminal case was returned to the prosecutor, due to the fact that the indictment is drawn up with violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, which eliminates the possibility of the court of sentencing or to make a different decision on the basis of this act.

At the same time, as the court indicated in his decision, "As follows from the text of the charge set out in the indictment:" According to the prescription dated 01.01.2001. No. / 48/2, rendered by the head of FCU IC-7 GUFSIN of Russia in the Republic of Bashkortostan by Lieutenant Colonel Internal service with respect to the convicted person, liberated from FKU IK-7 GUFSIN of Russia in the Republic of Bashkortostan, the convict is obliged to arrive after liberation no later than December 16, 2013 to the elected place of residence at: "A", sq.12. "

Then, when describing the circumstances of the crime, it is indicated that: "After liberation from the FCU IC-7, GUFSIN of Russia in the Republic of Bashkortostan, 12/15/2013, being in Samara Samara region, committed a crime under Part 1 of Article 158 of the Criminal RF. 03/14/2014 G. was convicted by the magistrate of the judicial Krasnoglin district of Samara under Article 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to the punishment in the form of imprisonment for a period of 8 months with a sentence in a correctional colony strict regime. That is, in order to evade administrative supervision, maliciously disrupting the decision of the Meleuz District Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan and the prescriptions from 01.01.2001. No. / 48/2, issued by the head of the FCU IC-7 GUFSIN of Russia in the Republic of Bashkortostan, did not deliberately in the Ministry of Internal In the city of Kirov at: 1, for setting administrative accounting to the place of residence. "

Thus, in the indictment, with the presentation of the essence of the prosecution, there is no indication of how elected the place of residence did not come without valid reasons to a certain administration correctional institution Term, and it is indicated that chauzov, maliciously disrupting the decision of the court and the prescription of the chief of the correctional institution, was deliberately did not arrive in the internal affairs body at: 1, for setting administrative accounting to the place of residence. At the same time, it is not possible to establish it from the accusation, about which period of non-Communion is in question. "

The specified court order was appealed by the district prosecutor, however, the court decree appeals instance From 01.01.2001, the ruling is left unchanged, and the protest of the prosecutor is not satisfied.

In the future, a criminal case on charges of consideration in the Leninsky District Court of Kirov did not receive.

3. Are there any difficulty courts related to the establishment of a period to which the supervised person should have arrived at the place of residence or stay?

When surveying judges, in whose production there were cases of this category, it was established that any difficulties associated with the establishment of a period to which the supervised person should have arrived at the place of residence or stay, did not arise.

4. What are the actions of the supervised person qualified by the courts as unauthorized leaving them of the place of residence or stay? Did the courts of difficulties arise when establishing the fact of leaving the supervision of the place of residence or stay?

When considering criminal cases, the courts qualified as unauthorized leaving of the place of residence or stay following the following actions of the superior person:

Changing the place of residence without notifying the internal affairs bodies about the new place of stay.

For example, the verdict of the Leninsky District Court of Kirov dated January 1, 2001 (Case No. 1-504 / 2015) was convicted for committing a crime provided for by Art. 314.1 Part 1 of the Criminal Code. At the same time, as established by the court, "Contrary to the decision of the Leninsky District Court of Kirov dated 01.01.2001 and the prevention of the head of the department for the implementation of administrative supervision of the OUPO and PDN of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in Kirov, deliberately, in order to evade administrative supervision from 06.10.2014 Until May 10, 2015, he was not registered with the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in Kirov, having left the Kirov region from 09/16/2014 to 12/03/2014 in Moscow, nothing about the place of his stay in the internal affairs bodies did not report " .

5. Are the courts arise in the establishment of a crime goal provided for by paragraph 1 of Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation? What kind of acts were recognized by the court as committed guilty to evade administrative supervision?

The judges survey showed that issues in establishing the goal of a crime provided for in paragraph 1 of Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation did not arise.

At the same time, as acts committed guilty of devotion from administrative supervision, as a rule, recognized: non-appearance in the internal affairs bodies for registration and unauthorized leaving of the place of residence.

For example, when considering criminal case No. 1987/2015 on charges of committing a crime provided for by Art. 314.1 Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by the Federal Law No. 01.01.2001), it was established that by the decision of the Omutninsky District Court of the Kirov region of 01.01.2001, the administrative supervision was established to 07 October 2019, and administrative Restrictions in the form: a ban on staying outside of residential or other premises, which is for the place of residence or stay from 22 hours to 06 hours; ban on traveling beyond the administrative area at the place of registration or stay without permission of the internal affairs body at the place of registration or stay; Mandatory turnout twice a month in the internal affairs body at the place of residence or stay for registration.

07.10.2013 by the head of the FCU IK-1, the UFSIN of Russia in the Kirov region was awarded prescription No. 44 / TO / 4B that in accordance with the decision of the Omutninsky District Court of the Kirov region dated 01.01.2001, being a person in respect of which Administrative supervision, it is obliged to arrive after liberation no later than October 8, 2013. To the elected place of residence, at the address: Kirov region, in Kirovsky Complex Social Center to assist persons without a certain place of residence and classes. " And also, it is obliged to appear for registration with the internal affairs body within three working days from the date of arrival to the chosen place of residence or stay.

08.10.2013 arrived at the elected place of residence at the address: Kirov region, in Kirovsky Complex Social Center to assist persons without a certain place of residence and classes, "where he lived until October 25, 2013. However, contrary to the decision of the Omutninsky District Court of the Kirov region and the prescription of the head of the FCU IK-1, the UFSIN of Russia in the Kirov region, intentionally, in order to evade administrative supervision to accounting to the body of the internal affairs at the place of residence did not rise. In order to evade administrative supervision on October 25, 2013, the place of residence at the address: 9, Kirovsky comprehensive social center for assistance to persons without a certain place of residence and classes "and drove out of the city of Kirov in the Arbazh district of Kirov Areas, where he was 12.03.2015.

6. What exactly was the non-compliance with the person in respect of which the administrative supervision was established, administrative restrictions or restrictions established by the court in accordance with the Federal Law -FZ?

The study of cases showed a non-compliance with the person in respect of which the court establishes administrative supervision, administrative restrictions or restrictions, when considering cases of cases, it was recognized as the execution of these persons, being warned about criminal liability under Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code, including part 2 This article, the following intentional actions:

Non-compliance with the prohibition of staying outside of residential or other premises, which is a place of residence or stay of the superior person, from 22 hours to 06 hours of the next day;

Failure to appear in the internal affairs bodies at the place of residence or stay;

Violation of the prohibition of travel beyond the territory of the municipality at the place of registration or stay;

For example, the verdict of the Leninsky District Court of Kirov dated 01.01.2001 (Case No. 1-500 / 2015) was found guilty of committing a crime provided for by Art. 314.1 Part 2 of the Criminal Code. At the same time, as established by the court of 15.01.2015, it was re-warned about criminal responsibility under art. 314.1 of the Criminal Code, including under part 2 of this article, which provides for criminal liability for a repeated non-compliance with the person in respect of which the administrative supervision was established, the administrative restrictions established by the court associated with the execution of the administrative offense against the procedure for the management (except administrative offenseprovided for by Art. 19.24 of the Administrative Code), or an administrative offense encroaching on public order and public security, or an administrative offense encroaching on health, sanitary-epidemiological well-being of the population and public morality. However, during the period of time from 02.02.2015 to 03/13/2015, on arising intention to evade administrative supervision, contrary to the decision of the Omutninsky District Court of the Kirov region of 01.01.2001, being properly warned about criminal liability under Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, deliberately, repeatedly did not follow the administrative restriction established by him by the court, in the form of a ban on staying outside of residential or other premises, which is a place of residence or stay of the superior person, from 22.00 to 06.00 hours of the next day, ban travel beyond the territory municipal Education At the place of registration or stay, commitments to register to the authority of the internal affairs at the place of residence or stay 2 times a month on the established schedule.

So, 02.02.2015. Not appeared on registration in the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in Kirov, than violated the obligation to appear to register to the body of the internal affairs at the place of residence or stay 2 times a month on the established schedule. According to the decision of the magistrate of the Judicial Leninsky district of Kirov in the case of an administrative offense of 01.01.2001, he was found guilty of committing an administrative offense provided for in Part 3 of Art. 19.24 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation and subjected to an administrative arrest for a period of 10 days.

Also, on the night from 16 to 02/17/2015. There was no at the place of residence at the address: Kirov, the Soviet tract than violated the administrative restriction established by him by the court, in the form of a ban on staying outside of residential or other premises, which is a place of residence or stay of an appleful person, from 22.00 to 06.00 hours of the next day. According to the Regional Judge of the Judicial Leninsky district of Kirov in the case of an administrative offense of 01.01.2001, he was convicted of administrative offenses provided for by Part 1 of Art. 19.24 of the Code of Administrative Code and is subject to punishment administrative arrest For a period of 5 days.

Also, 03/02/2015 did not appear for registration in the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in Kirov, which violated the obligation to appear to register to the body of the internal affairs at the place of residence or stay 2 times a month on the established schedule. According to the Regional Judge of the Judicial Leninsky district of Kirov in the case of an administrative offense of 01.01.2001, he was convicted of administrative offenses provided for by Part 1 of Art. 19.24 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation and was punished in the form of an administrative arrest for a period of 5 days.

In addition, 03/13/2015, not becoming informed by Art. Inspector of the Department for the implementation of administrative supervision of the EUP and PDN of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in Kirov Major Police, intentionally went beyond the city of Kirov in the city of Kotelnich Kirov region, thereby violated the established restriction in the form of a ban on the branch of the territory of the municipality at the place of registration, either stay. According to the Regional Judge of the Judicial Leninsky district of Kirov in the case of an administrative offense of 01.01.2001, he was convicted of administrative offenses provided for by Part 1 of Art. 19.24 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation and was punished in the form of an administrative arrest for a period of 5 days.

In addition, on March 13, 2015, he repeatedly performed administrative offenses, encroaching on public order and public security, namely: 03/13/2015 at 07 hours 05 min. While in a public place, in the premises of the station Station. Kirov at: 3, able alcoholic intoxicationinsulting human dignity Both public morality, in the presence of foreign citizens, expressed obscene abuse, expressing explicit disrespect for society. According to the facts on March 21, 2015, according to the decree of the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in the city of Kirov in the case of an administrative offense was convicted of administrative offense, provided for by Part 1 of Art. 20.1 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, and subjected to administrative punishment in the form of an administrative fine in the amount of 600 rubles. On March 21, 2015, according to the decree of the Judge of the Judicial Leninist Judicial Area of \u200b\u200bKirov in the case of an administrative offense was convicted of administrative offense provided for by Art. 20.21 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, for the emergence of in a public place in a state of alcohol intoxication, insulting human dignity and public morality, and will be administratively punished in the form of an administrative arrest for a period of 5 days.

7. Whether in judicial practice cases when in decisions of ships administrative case Administrative restrictions were not enough about the administrative supervision (for example) administrative limitations (for example, the time of day was not defined, during which the proposal person is prohibited from being outside the residential premises; the exact number of the monthly obligatory appearance of the opeor of the internal affairs body is not established), which created certain Difficulties in solving the question of whether there was a non-compliance with the supervised person of the established administrative restriction (restrictions)?

The study of this category of cases considered by the Leninsky District Court of Kirov for the period of interest, has shown that in the practice of the court of cases when administrative restrictions were established in the decisions of the administrative supervision courts, administrative restrictions were established. As a rule, judges in court decisions clearly indicated administrative restrictions assigned to supervisors.

For example, by the decision of the Leninsky District Court of Kirov dated 01.01.2001 (Case number 2-2528 / 2014) satisfied the statement of the head of the FCE SIZO-2 UFSIN of Russia in the Kirov region on the establishment of administrative supervisory

The court establishes an administrative supervision in relation to the period established for repayment of the criminal record - 8 years, that is, until 13.08.2022, with the establishment of the following restrictions:

Prohibit leaving, beyond the territory of the municipality "Kotelnichesky district of the Kirov region" at the place of residence without permission territorial body internal affairs;

Establish an administrative restriction in the form of appearance once a month at the place of residence or stay for registration;

To prohibit stay outside the residential premises, which is a place of residence (stay) from 22 o'clock. 00 min. until 06 hours. 00 min. The next morning.

The term of administrative supervision was decided from the day registration in the internal affairs body at the chosen place of residence or stay.

Thus, difficulties in solving the question of whether the place of non-compliance with the supervisory face of the established administrative restriction (restrictions) was not available.

8. Are the difficulty courts arise related to the establishment of the conjugacy of repeated non-compliance with the supervisory person established by the court of administrative restrictions or restrictions with the execution of an administrative offense against the procedure for management (with the exception of the administrative offense provided for in Article 19.24 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation) or an encouraging of public order and Public security or health, sanitary and epidemiological well-being of the population and public morality (i.e., provided for by Chapter 6, 20 or 21 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation)? Give examples, conjugacy was established between what actions guilty. Would there be cases when such conjugacy was not established, what decisions were submitted by higher courts?

The survey of judges, in the production of which were the affairs of this category of affairs, showed that any difficulties associated with establishing the conjugation of repeated non-compliance with the supervisory person established by the court of administrative restrictions or restrictions with the execution of an administrative offense against the procedure of management (with the exception of an administrative offense, The COAP of the Russian Federation provided for by Article 19.24) is either an encouraging of public order and public safety or health, the sanitary and epidemiological well-being of the population and public morality, did not arise.

For example, the verdict of the Leninsky District Court of Kirov dated 01.01.2001 (Case No. 1-722 / 2015) was found guilty of committing a crime provided for by Article 314.1 of Part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

At the same time, the court found that during the period of administrative supervision, the last four times came to register to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in Kirov, which violated the obligation to appear to register at the place of residence or stay 2 times a month on the established schedule, committed administrative offenses of public order and public security.

So, 01/19/2015 at 13 o'clock. Gypsy, being in a public place in the courtyard of the house number 000 on the street. Lenin Kirov, committed small hooliganism, i.e. made a violation of public order, expressing explicit disrespect for society: in an excited state shouted loudly, waved his hands, violated the calm of the citizens, these actions were accompanied by obscene course, for which January 20, 2015 was brought to the administrative responsibility of Art. 20.1 Part 1 of the Administrative Code.

Also, Gypsies committed administrative offenses, encroaching on public order and public security, namely: July 10, 2015 at 18 o'clock. 40 min., While in a public place at the house at the address: Kirov in a state of intoxication, insulting human dignity and public morality, walked, stumbled from side to the side, stumbled, was unclean, for which the last 13.07.2015 was attracted K. administrative responsibility under art. 20.21 Administrative Code.

Cases when the conjugacy was not installed in the practice of the court, there is no.

9. Are the qualifications of the responsible guilty under Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation:

- as an unfinished crime;

- as a community in committing a crime;

- on the aggregate of crimes provided for by part 1 and part 2 of Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation?

Qualifications of the guilty of the article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as an unfinished crime; as a community in committing a crime; For the aggregate of crimes envisaged by Part 1 and Part 2 of Article 314.1. The Criminal Code seems impossible.

10. Are the courts arise questions related to:

- appointing punishment to persons who committed a crime provided for by part 1 or 2 of Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, including in cases where criminal cases were considered in a special order judicial trial or inquiry was carried out in abbreviated form;

- with the definition of jurisdiction of cases of crimes stipulated by the relevant part of Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation;

- By graduating from crimes provided for by part 1 or 2 of Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code, with other crimes?

According to the category of cases of questions related to the imposition of punishment to these persons in courts, including the examination of criminal cases in a special procedure of the trial did not arise. In addition, the study of cases has shown that in one criminal case, suspected petitions for the production of inquiry in abbreviation form did not declare, or was declared, but by the decree of the investigator, the presence of a suspect was left without satisfaction.

Also, the courts of issues related to the determination of the jurisdiction of cases and the elimination of crimes stipulated by the parts 1 and 2 of Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation did not arise.

11. Are the courts of case on crimes stipulated by the relevant part of Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the inquiry on which was carried out in a reduced form? If there are such criminal cases, please attach a copy to the answer court decisions (including sentence, decisions on the return of the criminal case to the prosecutor) issued on the results of consideration of these cases.

The study of criminal cases for the reporting period about the crimes of the provisions provided for by the corresponding part of Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation showed, the court did not consider cases for which the inquiry was carried out in an abbreviated form.

12. Examine the practice of making expressive sentences, Specify the grounds for which the courts were made appropriate solutions.

Expressive sentences at the specified category of affairs did not endorse.

13. Report as the foundations of the courts made decisions on termination of criminal cases against persons accused of committing the crimes under consideration.

Cases of termination of criminal cases under the case under consideration did not exist.

14. Whether the practice of making the courts of private definitions under the affairs of the category is common? Give examples.

15. Analyze the appeal and cassation practice of considering criminal cases of this category.

The study of criminal cases of this category showed that 10 sentences for 10 persons were appealed on appeals procedure. Of them:

8 sentences for 8 persons appealed to convicts;

Adhastable by the prosecutor of 2 sentences for 2 persons.

At the same time, the court of appeal instance of 9 sentences against 9 persons was left unchanged, 2 sentences for 2 persons changed.

The study of the appeal complaints of convicts and the decisions of the appellate instance showed that, as a rule, convicted in appeals referred to the excessiveness of the sentence, pointing out that when considering criminal cases, the court did not fully take into account, in particular, characterizing the data of convicts, or characteristics in criminal materials cases are biased; recognizing them of guilt in committed crimes; Their state of health, including mental and other circumstances.

There are also a single case of appeal against the convicts of the court sentence in terms of appointment as an additional penalty in the form of a fine (criminal case No. 1-273 / 2015), as well as on the essence of the charge (criminal case No. 1-150 / 2015).

In general, when considering the appeal complaints, the Court of Appeal does not see violations of criminal and criminal legislation, entailing cancellation or change of sentences and, as a rule, it comes to the conclusion that when considering criminal cases, the court of first instance comes to the right conclusions that wines The convicts are confirmed by the evidence collected on affairs, and when prescribing punishments, the requirements of Art. 6 and 60 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

At the same time, when considering the appellate court of criminal cases on the protests of the prosecutor, cases of improper application of criminal punishment during the imposition of punishment were revealed.

So, as the appellate court indicated in his decision of 01.01.2001 in case 1-774 / 2014 in relation to "according to Part 1 of Art. 60 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, a fair punishment is assigned a fair punishment within the limits provided for by the appropriate sanction of an article with a special part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and taking into account the provisions of the general part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

In accordance with Part 2 of Art. 68 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation The term of punishment for any form of recurrence of crimes can not be less than one third part maximum period The most strict type of punishment provided for perfect crimebut within the limiting sanction of the corresponding article with a special part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Sanction Art. 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as the most strict punishment provides for imprisonment for up to 1 year.

In violation of the claims of the criminal law, the court, recognizing the presence of Bakulina P. M. Recurious crimes, having come to the reasonable conclusion about the need to prescribe a sentence using Part 2 of Art. 68 of the Criminal Code and the lack of grounds for use to Bakulina P. M. Terms of Art. 64 of the Criminal Code, appointed her punishment in the form of correctional work.

Thus, when a sentencing and imposing a punishment of Bakulina P. M. The court made the incorrect application of the criminal law, which entailed the appointment of a punishment that does not correspond to nature and degree public danger committed crime, circumstances of his commitment and personality convicts, that is, ruled

with regard to Bakulina P. M. Unjust due to excessive sentence sentence. "

As a result, the verdict of the court in relation to was changed, the last sentence was prescribed in the form of 4 months of imprisonment with the serving of punishment in a correctional colony of the general regime. The convict is taken into custody in the courtroom.

As shown by the court of appeal in its decision of 01.01.2001 in case 1-544 / 2014 in relation to "As can be seen from the sentence, in resolving the question of the form and the amount of punishment, the court took into account the nature and degree of public danger of a perfect crime, identity data Guilty and such mitigating punishment of circumstances, as an active contribution to the disclosure and investigation of the crime, complete confession of guilt, state of health, as well as recurrence of crimes, as aggravating the circumstance.

At the same time, indicating in the verdict, which does not find any exceptional circumstances that significantly reduce the degree of public danger of the perfect crime, which would indicate the need and possibilities of applying when prescribing the punishment of the provisions of Art. Art. 64, 68 Part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the court gave violation of the requirements of the general part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, choosing a sentence in the form of 200 hours of mandatory work, i.e., a milder punishment than provided for this crime. "

As a result, the verdict of the court in relation to was changed, the last sentence was prescribed in the form of 6 months of imprisonment with the serving of punishment in the correctional colony of the strict regime. A preventive measure in the form of a subscription about the poor and proper behavior against the convicted person was canceled, the latter was taken into custody in the courtroom.

Thus, analyzing the above can be concluded that when considering by the courts of this category of affairs as a whole, the last of any difficulties does not arise and as a result of violations of criminal and criminal procedure legislation is not allowed.

Cases of consideration of this category of affairs in cassation has not been detected.

16. What other questions arise from judges when considering criminal cases under study? Notify the available offers for the content of the clarification of these issues, which should, in your opinion, include in the text of the Resolution of the Plenum.

The survey showed that any questions when considering criminal cases under study did not occur.

Chairman

Leninsky District Court of Kirov

The sentence of the world judge of the judicial district "Khabarovsk District of the Khabarovsk Territory" of the Judicial Area No. 69 in part 2 of Article 314 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Non-return to the correctional institution of a person convicted of imprisonment, which is allowed to travel outside the correctional institution, after the expenditure of departure or failure to appear The body of the criminal executive system of the person convicted of imprisonment, which is given to the delay of the execution of the sentence or serving the sentence, after the expiration date. "

Sentence

Name Russian Federation

khabarovsk Date1

The world judge of the judicial area "Khabarovsky district of the Khabarovsk Territory" of the judicial area No. 69 Zykova N.V.,

with the participation of the State Prosecutor - Assistant Prosecutor of the Khabarovsky District of the Khabarovsk Territory Sachuk O.S.,

lawyer Abdikeva E.A., who submitted a certificate and order,

defendant by bd,

with the secretary of the court session E.T.V.,

examined in open court session criminal case

Belyaeva FULL NAME1, Date of birth, a native of the city Address by the world judicial district of the judicial district No. 15 of the Industrial District of Khabarovsk under Article 158 Part 1, 158 Part 1, 158 Part 1, 158 Part 1, 158 , 30 h. 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with the use of Art. 69 h. 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to correctional work for a period of 8 months with the holding of 5% of all types of earnings in the state's income, with the use of Art. 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation conditionally, with a trial period of 1 year,

- Date of the industrial district court of Khabarovsk under Art. 158 h. 2 p. "A", 158 h. 2 p. "A", 158 h. 2 p. "A", 158 h. 1, 158 h. 1, 30 h. 3, 158 h. 2 . "A", 30 h 3, 158 Part 1, 158 h. 1, 158 h. 1, 158 h. 1, 158 h. 1, 158 h. 1, 30 h.3, 158 h. 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation using Art. 69 h. 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation by 4 years of imprisonment, with the use of Art. 73 of the Criminal Code conventionally, with a trial period of 3 years. The sentence of the World Judge of the Judicial Page No. 15 of the Industrial District of Khabarovsk from the date is decided to fulfill independently,

- Date of the industrial district court of Khabarovsk under Art. 158 h. 2 p. "B, B" to imprisonment for a period of 1 year without limitation of freedom. Based on Art. 70 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation joined the sentence from the date, total time imprisonment 4 years 4 months of imprisonment without restriction of freedom with serving a sentence in colony-settlement,

- the date of the world judicial district of the judicial area No. 25 of the Central District of Khabarovsk under Art. 158 Part 1, 158 Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with the use of Art. 69 Part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation by 8 months of imprisonment. Based on Art. 69 h. 5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for the aggregate of sentences to the newly appointed sentence partially joined the sentence of the district court of Khabarovsk from the date and to the departure was determined 4 years 9 months of imprisonment with the serving of punishment in the colony-settlement.

- the date of the magistrate of the judicial district "Industrial District of Khabarovsk" of the judicial area number under Art. 158 Part 1, 158 Part 1, 158 Part 1, 158 Part 1, 158 Part 1, 158 Part 1, 158 Part 1, 158 Part 1, 158 Part 1 of the Criminal Code with the use of Art. 69 Part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to imprisonment for a period of 9 months. Based on Art. 69 h. 5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation joined the sentence against the sentence of the World Judge of the Judicial Page No. 25 of the Central District of Khabarovsk from the date, was finally appointed punishment for the departure of 5 years in prison in the colony-settlement.

By the decision of the Khabarovsky District Court from the date transferred to the further serving of the penalties in the correctional colony of the general regime.

accused of committing a crime provided for by Article 314 part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

Installed:

Belyaev FULL NAME1 being a face convicted of imprisonment, which is allowed to travel beyond the correctional institution, did not return to a correctional institution after the expiration of the departure time, under the following circumstances.

Belyaev FULL NAME1, condemned date of the verdict of the magistrate of the judicial area "Industrial District of Khabarovsk" of the judicial area number under Art. 158 Part 1, 158 Part 1, 158 Part 1, 158 Part 1, 158 Part 1, 158 Part 1, 158 Part 1, 158 Part 1, 158 Part 1 of the Criminal Code with the use of Art. 69 Part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to imprisonment for a period of 9 months. Based on Art. 69 h. 5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation joined the sentence of a sentence of the World Judge of the Judicial Area No. 25 of the Central District of Khabarovsk from the date, finally appointed punishment for the departure of 5 years of imprisonment, watershed to the place of detention and serving the sentence in the Federal State Institution of the Colony Settlement Federal Service The execution of the punishment of Russia in the Khabarovsk Territory, located at: s. Address of the Khabarovsk Municipal District of the Khabarovsk Territory st. Cherkasov's address, 32, being in places of imprisonment, did not make sure for himself, did not come to the path of correction and committed an intentional crime, but it was not returned to a correctional institution after the departure time. So, in the period of time from 17 o'clock 00 minutes, the date until 09 o'clock 00 minutes by the date on the basis of the permission of the head of the FCE KP number of the UFSIN of Russia in the Khabarovsk Territory, namely, the decrees to hold a weekend and festive days Outside KP -22 from the date of the city of Belyaev D.S. A short-term departure was provided outside the colony, for the weekend days with relatives at the address: Khabarovsk Street. Address, 7-144. Belyaev D.S., being a warned of criminal liability under Article 314 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for evading the departure of imprisonment, aware of the public danger of his actions, providing the inevitability of the onset of socially dangerous consequences in the form of a violation of the court's sentence, as well as the disorganization of the activity of the correctional institution and wanting their offensive, that is, acting with direct intent, deliberately, illegally, after the expiration of the departure provided, namely to 09 o'clock 00 minutes the date, did not return to the FCU KP, the number of UFSIN RUSSIA in the Khabarovsk Territory, thus evassed from serving the sentence in The form of imprisonment in the period of time from 09 hours 00 minutes Date to 20 hours 10 minutes Date was detained by employees of the FCE KP Number of the UFSIN RUSSIA in the Khabarovsk Territory in the room of the Place Club "Colosseum" at the address: Khabarovsk Ul. Address d. 80.

At the court hearing the defendant by B.D.S. His guilt in committing charged charged to him completely, in his hadnified, supported his petition for a decree against him in the presence of a lawyer without a trial, motivating his request to the fact that he agreed with the accusation filed by him aware of the nature and consequences of the stated The petition that is stated to them voluntarily and after consultation with the defender.

Supported the petition of the defendant.

The public prosecutor did not mind consideration of the case in a special order.

The legality, attribution and admissibility of evidence available in the case, the amount of prosecution is not disputed.

The court was convinced that this petition was stated voluntarily after consulting the defender, while the defendant explained and he fully realizes the consequences of the decree against him of the conviction without a trial.

The court also concludes that the accusation with which the defendant agreed is reasonable, confirmed by the evidence available in the case, and therefore the court considers it possible to decide on Bellyaeva D.S. The conviction and qualifies its actions under Art. 314 Part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - non-return to the correctional institution of a person convicted of imprisonment, which is allowed to travel beyond the correctional institution, after the expenditure of departure.

According to the certificate, on l. D. 180 B.D.S. Included from a doctor, a narcologist does not consist, according to a certificate, on l. d. 181 Belyaev D.S. Consists of a psychiatrist doctor with a diagnosis of a schizotic personality disorder.

According to the conclusion of the Commission of Experts, the number from the date (LD.109-114), Belyaev D.S. any chronic mental disorder, temporary mental disorder, dementia, depriving his ability to realize the actual nature and public danger of their actions and manage them, did not suffer earlier, does not suffer at the moment, and also did not suffer from those at the time of the commission of the incriminated act, and The signs of the emotional-unstable disorder of the personality, impulsive type, expressing in emotional instability, impulsiveness, the tendency to act without taking into account the consequences and social conventions, indifference to the feelings of others, neglect the social rules and duties, along with the instability of the mood, frivolity, vulnerability that He led to social and labor dezadaption. However, his degree of changes from the psyche is not as follows, both at the present time and at the time of the acting acts incriminated to him so that he cannot fully realize the actual nature of his actions and lead them. With this study of objective signs, the presence of hallucinatory experiences is not detected, the statements of Belyaeva D.S. The complaints about the fact that in the evenings "sees cats" in the department, clinically implausible, do not find their confirmation, do not affect his behavior and do not fit into the clinical picture of any mental illness, they should be regarded as protective and installation. The previously established diagnoses "Children's Type of Schizophrenia", "Schizotypic Personality Disorder" currently do not find their clinical confirmation and dynamic development, they should be considered erroneous. As can be seen from the materials of the criminal case during the period of time relating to the act incriminated to him, he also did not have any temporary painful disorder of mental activity, he was correctly focused in the environment, his actions were focused, he could fully realize the actual The nature of the public danger of their actions and lead them. Currently, in his mental state Belyaev D.S. may be aware of the actual nature of its actions and manage them, understand the nature and importance of criminal proceedings (the essence of procedural actions and received by their evidence), and also has the ability to independently perform actions aimed at implementing these rights and obligations, can correctly perceive circumstances having value for a criminal case and testify to participate in investigation activities and proceedings on the case, independently protect their rights and legal interests In criminal proceedings. Revealed by Belyaeva D.S. Mental disorder, with danger to him and other persons, or with the possibility of causing other significant damages. Currently, he does not need a medical condition in the application of compulsory medical measures.

Taking into account the above, the court recognizes Belyaeva D.S. Claimed in relation to the incriminated act.

As circumstances mitigating the punishment of Belyaeva D.S., the court recognizes the confession of guilt, repentance in the deed, jaw on which the court recognizes an explanation (l. 10), given Bellyaev D.S. About the circumstances of the crime before the initiation of criminal case, health condition.

The circumstance, aggravating punishment, the court recognizes the recurrence of crimes.

When prescribing a punishment, the Court in accordance with Article 6 of the Criminal Code takes into account the nature and degree of public danger of the committed act, the personality of the defendant, who committed a crime during the period of an emergency punishment for the previous sentence for committing a crime against property, characterization at the place of residence, the place of serving the sentence , all the circumstances established in the case, the presence of mitigating and aggravating the circumstances, as well as the property position of the defendant and the influence of the imposed penalties for his correction and the living conditions of his family and concludes that its correction is impossible without isolation from society, in connection What does it consider necessary to appoint a bd s. Punishment in the form of imprisonment, taking into account the requirements of Article 316 Ch. 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

Appointing a different type of punishment provided for by the sanction Articles, the court considers inexpedient.

The grounds for applying to the defendant of the provisions of Article 64, 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is not established.

Considering that B.D.S. Delivered a crime in the period of an unnecessary punishment by the sentence of the World Judge of the judicial area "Industrial District of Khabarovsk" of the judicial area number from the date, the world judge shall appoint a final sentence according to the rules of Article 70 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The place of serving the punishment Belyaeva D.S. By virtue of Art. 58 Part 1 of "In" of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation should determine the correctional colony of strictly regime.

The grounds for changing the category of crime in accordance with Article 15, Ch.6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on a less serious court not established due to the lack of such, since the perfect crime refers to the category of small severity.

The fate of the physical evidence of the case is permissible in accordance with Article 81 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

Civil law is not stated.

Based on the foregoing, guided by Art. St. Str. 296-299, 304, 307-308, 316 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Court

Sentenced:

to recognize Belyaeva FULL NAME1 guilty of committing a crime provided for by Article 314 part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and to impose a sentence in the form of imprisonment for a period of 1 (one) year.

Based on Article 70 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for the aggregate sentences to the appointed bd At the present sentence, the punishment partially attach an unnecessary part of the punishment by the sentence of the world judge of the judicial area "Industrial District of Khabarovsk" of the judicial area number from the date, and finally appoint a b .ds. Punishment in the form of imprisonment with a term of 3 (three) years with a punishment in a correctional colony of strictly regime.

Measure of preventing prior to the entry of the sentence into legal force by B.D. Change from the subscription to the wrong season for the detention.

SENTENCE

Name of the Russian Federation

Soviet District Court of Samar as part of:

presiding Judge Burchenko D.Yu.

with the participation of the state prosecutor Volovetskaya E.N.

the defendant M.

defender Antonova A.P., who submitted a certificate No. and order number<данные изъяты>,

under the secretary of Chertovtsevoy E.A.

examined in open court in a sense of criminal case No. (№) in relation to M ., DD.MM.YYYY BIRTH year, native <адрес>, citizen <данные изъяты>, <данные изъяты>having <данные изъяты> Education not working registered at:<адрес>previously tried:

- 14.09.2005. Soviet District Court of Samar on P.P. "A, G" Part 2 of Article 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation by 2 years in prison, on the basis of Article 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation conventionally with a trial period of 2 years. Resolution of the Kirovsky District Court of Samara from 30.05.2006. The conditional condemnation is canceled, sent to the place of imprisonment for a period of 2 years. Released on 03.09.2007. Conditionally early for 10 months 24 days;

- 04/04/2008 Soviet District Court of Samar under Part 2 of Article 162, Article 79, 70 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation by 5 years 1 month of imprisonment. Released on January 22, 2013. to serving a sentence;

- 29.04.2013. Kirovsky District Court of Samar under Part 1 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation by 3 years in prison with the serving of the punishment in the correctional colony of the strict regime. Released 04.02.2016. to depart the term of punishment,

accused of committing crimes provided for by paragraph "A" Part 2 of Article 116, Part 1 of Article 161, Part 1 of Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,

Installed:

M. committed a crime, provided for in Art.116 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 323-ФЗ), made a deposit that caused physical pain, but did not entail the consequences specified in Article 115 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, from the hooligan Intelligence, under the following circumstances.

M., DD.MM.YYYY., At about 21 hours. 30 min., The exact time during the inquiry is not established, being in a state of intoxication, was <адрес>where I saw the unfamiliar to him K. U M. Unfortunno, from hooligan motivations, there was intent to applying K. For this purpose, M. began to pursue K., ran after him and caught up with him around the corner of the above house, where intentionally, aware of the wrongful nature of his actions, unfortunately, from hooligan motives, with force of at least 8 blows of fists of both hands different parts Bodies and heads K., from which the latter experienced a strong physical pain in the places of strikes. After that, M. began to hold TO. K. broke out and tried to escape from M., but lost its balance and fell. M. Dognaal K. and, continuing his criminal intent, unfortunately, from hooligan motivations, struck both hands of both hands at least five blows in various parts of the body and head K., causing two actions K. Strong physical pain in the deposition places. According to the expert № from DD.MM.YYYY., U K. Mounted damage: abrasions: on the face and head that did not cause a short-term disorder of health or a minor loss of loss of everybody, therefore, did not harm the health of K.

M. committed a crime under Part 1 of Article 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, made a robbery, that is, the open embezzlement of someone else's property, under the following circumstances.

M. DD.MM.YYYY., At about 01.00 hours, the exact time during the inquiry was not established, being in a state of alcohol intoxication, was at the bar " <данные изъяты>"Located at: <адрес>where I saw previously unfamiliar to him K., in the hands of which was the cell phone brand "Lenovo A 319", worth 3990 rubles. M. The intent on the robbery appeared, i.e. Open theft of someone else's property, namely, the cell phone of the brand "Lenovo A319" belonging to K. In its favor, with a selfish purpose. M., realizing his criminal intent, realizing that his actions are open and are obvious to K., walked over to the latter from the back and openly kidnapped, pulling out of her hands, belonging to her cell phone brand "Lenovo A 319" worth 3990 rubles. 00 kopecks, after which, M. with the abducted property from the crime scene disappeared, causing his actions K. Damage in the amount of 3990 rubles. 00 cop. Subsequently, M. ordered the abducted property in his personal mercenary interests.

M. committed a crime under Part 1 of Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, committed evasion from administrative supervision, that is, unauthorized leaving the supervision of the place of residence, committed in order to evade administrative supervision, under the following circumstances.

M., convicted DD.MM.YYYY. Kirovsky District Court of Samar under Article 111 of Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for the deprivation of freedom for a period of 3 years with serving a punishment in a correctional colony of a strict regime, DD.MM.YYYY was freed. from FKU IK No. GULFSIN RF <адрес> to serving a sentence. In relation to M. Decision of the Krasnoglinsky district court<адрес> from DD.MM.YYYY. In accordance with the Federal Law of 04/06/2011. No. 64-FZ "On the administrative supervision of persons released from imprisonment places", an administrative supervision was established for a period of 6 years before the conviction repayment, i.e. before 04.02.2022, with the establishment of restrictions and responsibilities for this period: to prohibit, visit the peetic establishments, cafes, bars, restaurants, nightclubs, entertainment events after 21.00.; To prohibit stay outside the residential premises or other premises, which is a place of residence, or stay from 23.00. until 06.00 h. next day, except for the work related to work; To be once a month in the internal affairs bodies at the place of residence or stay for registration. DD.MM.YYYY. M. Posted on preventive records, in relation to it, administrative supervision was established in OP No. 3 at the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in Samara, located at the address: Samara, Soviet district, Zaporzhskaya St., D.5, on the same day he warned About criminal liability under Part 1 of Article.314.1 of the Criminal Code for evading administrative supervision. M., realizing that he is an applied face, having criminal intent to decline from administrative supervision, left themselves on 05/18/2016, without notifying the employees of OP number 3 of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in Samara, carrying out administrative supervision, in order to evade administrative supervision His place of accommodation at:<адрес>, having moved to the address:<адрес>. As well as M. violated the restriction established against him, namely, without good reasons, did not appear on the day DD.MM.YYYY. Registration in OP number 3 at the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in Samar. DD.MM.YYYY. M. during search events It was detained and delivered to OP number 3 at the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in Samara. Thus, in the period from DD.MM.YYYY on DD.MM.YYYY. shied away from administrative supervision, left the place of residence.

When familiarizing with the materials of the criminal case M. stated a petition for the consideration of the case in a special order. At the hearing, the defendant supported his petition for the consideration of the criminal case in a special order.

The defender was supported by the defendant.

The public prosecutor and the victims did not object to the consideration of the case in a special order.

The court concludes that the conditions of the sentence decisions are observed without a court proceedings, namely, the defendant in court explained that the prosecution was clear to him, he agrees with the accusation and supports a petition for a sentence without a court proceedings. This petition declared them voluntarily and after consulting with the defender, he realizes the consequences of the resolution of the sentence without a court proceedings.

The grounds for changing the category of crimes per little bit under Part 6 of Article 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the use of Part 3 of Article 68, Article 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the court does not see.

When prescribing the punishment and election of the type of correctional institution, the Court takes into account the circumstances of both mitigating and aggravating punishment, as well as the fact that the objectives of the previous penalties provided for in Part 2 of Article 43 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, namely, the correction of the convicted person and the prevention of new crimes are not achieved . M. The proposed conclusions did not do for himself, did not get up to the path, committed crimes after a minor time after liberation, if there was a relapse in the actions, and therefore, in accordance with paragraph. "In" Part 1 of Article 58 of the Criminal Code, the court appoints It is serving a sentence in a correctional colony of a strict regime.

The claims of the victim C. The material nature is reasonable, and therefore the claims are subject to satisfaction. . Punishment in the form of 1 (one) of the year 6 (six) months of imprisonment with serving the punishment in a correctional colony of strict regime.

The measure of preventing in the form of imprisonment is left unchanged.

The term of serving a sentence is calculated with DD.MM.YYYY. Book in the term of serving the time of detention from DD.MM.YYYY. DD.MM.YYYY.

Claim To satisfy. Recover . in favor TO material damage In the amount of 3990 (three thousand nine hundred and ninety) rubles.

Consumer proof of the case - a cash check and a copy of the document on the cell phone "Lenovo A 319" - to store in a criminal case.

The sentence can be appealed on appeal to the Samara Regional Court through the Soviet District Court of Samara within 10 days from the date of the proclamation, in compliance with Article 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, according to which the sentence cannot be appealed in appeal on the basis, provided for in paragraph 1 of Article 389.15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In case of filing appeal complaintThe convicted entitled to apply for his participation in the consideration of the case by the appellate court.

Non-validation without good reasons for the person in respect of which an administrative supervision is established when exemption from seats of deprivation of liberty, to their elected place of residence or stay to a certain administration of a correctional term, as well as unauthorized leaving the superior person of residence, stay or actual location committed in order to evasion from administrative supervision - punished mandatory work For a period of one hundred and eighty to two hundred forty hours, or correctional work for up to two years, or imprisonment for up to one year.

Part 2 of Art. 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

A repeated non-compliance with the person in respect of which the administrative supervision is established, administrative restrictions or restrictions established by the court in accordance with the Federal Law, conjugate with the execution of the administrative offense against the procedure for the Office (with the exception of the administrative offense provided for in Article 19.24 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation ) or an administrative offense encroaching on public order and public security, or an administrative offense encroaching on the health, sanitary and epidemiological well-being and public morality, or an administrative offense provided for in paragraph 7 of Article 11.5, or article 11.9, or article 12.8, or Article 12.26 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is punishable in a fine of up to sixty thousand rubles or in the amount of wages or other income convicted for a period of up to six months, or mandatory work for a period from one hundred to one hundred and eighty hours or correctional work for a period of up to one year or forced work for a period of up to one year, or arrest for up to six months or deprivation Freedom for up to one year.

Note.

A repeated non-compliance with the person in respect of which the administrative supervision was established, the administrative restrictions or restrictions established by the court in accordance with the Federal Law, the failure to comply with the person in respect of which the administrative supervision was established, the administrative restrictions or restrictions established by the court in accordance with the Federal Law, Provided that this person was previously attracted to administrative responsibility for a similar act twice within one year.

Comment to Art. 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

Commentary edited by Esakova G.A.

1. The objective side of the crime under Part 1 is expressed in the form of inaction or action by: a) Non-defense without good reasons for the person in respect of which an administrative supervision is established when exempted from seats of imprisonment, to the elected place of residence or stay in a certain administration correctional institution deadlines (this inaction is in violation of the obligation established in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Art. 11 of the Federal Law of April 6, 2011 N 64-FZ "On the administrative supervision of persons released from the places of imprisonment"); b) unauthorized leaving the specified face of the place of residence or stay ( this action It consists in violation of the responsibility established in paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Art. 11 of the indicated law). The objective side of the crime, provided for by Part 2, is characterized by the action and (or) inaction on a repeated non-compliance with the specified person of administrative restrictions or restrictions established by the court, in accordance with Part 1 of Art. 4 of this law, conjugate with the commission of an administrative offense against the order of management (provided for in ch. 19 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, except for the offense, enshrined in Art. 19.24 of the Code of Administrative District), or an administrative offense, encroaching on public order and public safety (provided for in ch. 20 COAP RF), or an offense encroaching on health, sanitary and epidemiological well-being of the population and public morality (fixed in ch. 6 of the Code of Administrative Code of the Russian Federation). In accordance with the note, the article is recognized as repeated non-compliance with the supervised person of these administrative restrictions or restrictions, if this person has previously been attracted to administrative responsibility for a similar act (under Art. 19.24 of the Code of Administrative Code of the Russian Federation) twice for one year.

2. The crime is recognized as completed from the moment of the specified action (inaction).

3. A good reasons for the non-profit of the person in respect of which the administrative supervision is established when exemption from seats of imprisonment, within a certain period of selected, the place of residence or stay may be concrete circumstances that prevented the execution of the obligations specified in the prescription (for example, emergency Natural or technogenic character, temporary lack of transport communication, severe disease of this person) (paragraph 5 of the Resolution of the Plenum Supreme Court RF dated May 24, 2016 N 21 "On judicial practice in cases of crimes provided for in Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation").

4. Subjective side It is characterized by direct intent, and at part 1 is a special purpose of evading administrative supervision.

5. The subject is special: under part 1 - a person in respect of which an administrative supervision is established, under Part 2 - a person in respect of which the administrative supervision is established, which was previously attracted to administrative responsibility for the offense provided for by Art. 19.24 Administrative Code, twice for one year.

Commentary on Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

Commentary edited by Rarog A.I.

Commentary on Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

Commentary edited by A.V. Brilliantov

Object of Crime - public relations, ensuring compliance with the facilities of the requirements of the administrative supervision established by the court decision in order to protect government and public interests.

Administrative supervision - the observation by the person who exempted from the places of imprisonment established by the court in accordance with the Federal Law of April 6, 2011 N 64-FZ "On administrative supervision of persons released from imprisonment" temporary restrictions His rights and freedoms, as well as the fulfillment of their duties provided for by the specified law.

The tasks of administrative supervisory is the prevention of crimes and other offenses, the provision of individual preventive impact in order to protect government and public interest in respect of an adult person, liberated or exempt from deprivation of freedom and having an outstanding or unnecessary criminalibility for the commission:

1) a grave or especially grave crime;

2) crimes in recurrence of crimes;

3) intentional crime For a minor.

In a relationship specified persons Administrative supervision is established if:

1) The person in the period of serving the sentence in places of imprisonment was recognized as a malicious violator installed order serving the sentence;

2) a person who has served criminal penalty In the form of imprisonment and having an outstanding or unnecessary criminal record, it makes two or more administrative offenses against the order of management and (or) administrative offenses, encroaching on public order and public security and (or) on public health and public morality.

With regard to an adult person, freedomed or exempt from places of imprisonment and having an outstanding or unreasonable conviction for committing a crime against sexual integrity and sexual freedom of a minor, as well as for committing a crime with a dangerous or particularly dangerous recurrence of crimes, administrative supervision is established regardless of the above grounds.

The objectives of the administrative supervision are achieved by administrative restrictions established in accordance with Art. 4 of the Federal Law of April 6, 2011 N 64-FZ.

To them, in particular, prohibition refers:

- stay in certain places;

- visits to the venues of mass and other events and participation in them;

- stay outside residential or other premises, which is a place of residence or stay of the superior person at a certain time of the day;

- Departure for the territory limits set by the court.

Regardless of the prohibitions imposed on the discretion of the Court, an obligatory restriction establishes from one to four times a month to the internal affairs body at the place of residence or stay for registration.

The court during the term of administrative supervision may supplement or cancel administrative restrictions installed by the supervisor.

The term of administrative supervision depends on the category of the person in respect of which it is established (Art. 5 of the Federal Law of April 6, 2011 N 64-FZ), if there are grounds, it can be extended or terminated early.

According to the legislative construction, the crime provided for by Art. 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation has a formal composition.

The obligatory feature of the objective side of the crime under consideration is the implementation of the acts specified in the disposition of the article:

- Non-profit without valid reasons for an oversporting person when freeing from seats of imprisonment to their elected place of residence or stay in a certain administration executive institution deadline; Anyway

- Unauthorized leaving the place of residence or stay, committed in order to evade administrative supervision.

From this point on, the crime is considered to be completed.

The subjective side is characterized by direct intent and availability. special goal - Evasion from administrative supervision.

The subject of the crime is a special - an adult person in respect of which administrative supervision is established.

Video about Art. 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

In order to ensure the right and uniform application by the courts of the Criminal Law when considering cases of deviation from administrative supervision or on repeated non-compliance with the courts established by the court in accordance with the Federal Law of Restrictions or Restrictions and in connection with the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation that arises in judicial practice, guided by Article 126 The Constitution of the Russian Federation and Articles 2 and 5 of the Federal Constitutional Law of February 5, 2014 No. 3-FCZ "On the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation", decides to give the following explanations:

1. The subject of the crime provided for in Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) may only have a person in respect of which in accordance with the Federal Law of April 6, 2011 No. 64-FZ "On Administrative Supervision of Persons released from Freedom deprivation places "(hereinafter referred to as the Federal Law on Administrative Supervision) by the court in order administrative proceedings Installed administrative supervision.

In this regard, it is necessary to find out whether there was a defendant at the time of committing evasion from administrative supervision or repeated non-compliance with the court established by the Court in accordance with the Federal Law of Restrictions or restrictions that have entered into legitimate the decision of the court for the administrative case on the establishment on the extension of administrative supervision The administrative supervision is not expired by these decisions.

2. Considering that the place of residence or residence of a person in respect of which administrative supervision is established and is carried out is one of the signs of the objective part of the crime specified in paragraph 1 of Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the courts in establishing this feature should be proceeding from the provisions of Article 2 of the Law of the Russian Federations of June 25, 1993 No. 5242-I "On the right of citizens of the Russian Federation to freedom of movement, the choice of place of stay and residence within the Russian Federation", according to which the place of residence is a residential building, an apartment, a room, a residential premises of a specialized housing Fund (Service residential premises, residential premises in the hostel, residential premises of the maneuverable foundation, residential premises in the House of Social Services Social Services and others) or other residential premises in which the person has the right to reside as the owner, under the employment contract (vermine), employment contract specialized residential premises or on other grounds, stipulated by law Russian Federation; Location of stay - hotel, sanatorium, holiday home, boarding house, medical organization Or another similar institution, including social shelter, rehabilitation institution, as well as a residential premises that is not a place of residence, in which the person has the right to reside temporarily.

In accordance with Part 6 of Article 173.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the PEC RF), the address of the place of residence or stay, according to which the person must arrive, is indicated in the prescription, awarded him by the administration of a correctional institution when exemption from deprivation facilities.

3. To draw the attention of the courts to the fact that the responsibility of paragraph 1 of article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for non-profit without valid reasons for the person in respect of which the administrative supervision is established when exemption from places of deprivation of liberty, to their elected place of residence or stay within a certain period, as well as For unauthorized leaving the superior person of residence or stay comes only in the case when these acts are faced in order to evade administrative supervision.

For such a goal, actual circumstances indicating in each particular case of the intention of the relevant person to impede control or avoid control by the internal affairs bodies for compliance with the administrative restrictions established it or restrictions specified in paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Federal Law on Administrative Supervision , as well as for the implementation of these constraints listed in paragraph 1 of Article 11 of this Federal Law.

At the same time, if a person in respect of which an administrative supervision is installed, at a certain period did not come to the place of residence or stay or the superior person temporarily left it without permission of the internal affairs body, for example, due to the need to visit a seriously ill close relative, get an urgent medical carethat does not turn out to be in settlementwhere he lives, etc., without having intent to avoid control by the internal affairs bodies, such an act is not criminalized.

4. In the meaning of part 1 of Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and, taking into account the provisions of parts 5 and 6 of Article 173.1, the PEC RF and Article 4, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Article 11 of the Federal Law on Administrative Supervision Non-Professional Affairs in respect of which administrative supervision is established From the seats of deprivation of freedom, to their elected place of residence or stay to a certain administration of a correctional institution, the period should be considered the failure to fulfill the duties specified in the prescription, to arrive at the place of residence chosen to them or stay within a certain period and appear for registration with the internal affairs body during Three working days from the date of arrival, committed with the intended part 1 of Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

5. A good reasons for the non-profit of the person in respect of which an administrative supervision is established when exempting from places of imprisonment, within a certain period of selected, the place of residence or stay may be concrete circumstances that prevented the execution of the obligations specified in the prescription (for example, a natural or technogenic emergency. Character, temporary lack of transport communication, severe disease of this person).

6. Under the unauthorized leaving the superior person of the place of residence or stay, it is necessary to understand its confusion (unwinding) at the place of residence or stay and (or) its departure for the territory established by the court without permission of the internal affairs body issued in accordance with Part 3 of Article 12 of the Federal Law On administrative supervision committed with the provisions provided for by part 1 of Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

If the superior person, having a goal to avoid administrative supervision, received permission to stay outside residential or other premises, which is a place of residence or stay, and (or) on the short-term departure for the territory established by the court due to exclusive personal circumstances, provided for in paragraphs 1-6 of Part 3 of Article 12 of the Federal Law on Administrative Supervision, but did not come to the place of temporary stay and did not register in the internal affairs body in this place of stay, such actions should also be recognized by the unauthorized leaving of the place of residence or stay.

7. Provided Article 78 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the terms of the criminal prosecution for evading administrative supervision committed in the form of unauthorized leaving the superior person of the place of residence or stay should be calculated from the date of detention of the superior person or the day of the appearance of it with the obey.

8. Clarify the courts that the objective side of the crime under part 2 of Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is committed to the person in respect of which the administrative supervision is established and which previously was previously attracted to administrative responsibility in part 1 and part 3 of the article. 19.24 Code of Administrative Offenses (hereinafter - the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation) for non-compliance with the court established him by administrative restrictions or restrictions, a new act, expressed in non-compliance with such restrictions or restrictions, while not expired during which this person was considered to be subjected to administrative punishment. For the previous offenses, provided for by Part 1 and part 3 of Article 19.24 of the Code of Administrative Code.

The specified act must be associated with the commission of an administrative offense against the management order (included in Chapter 19, with the exception of Article 19.24 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation) or an administrative offense encroaching on public order and public security (included in chapter 20 of the Code of Code of the Russian Federation) or to health , Sanitary and epidemiological well-being of the population and public morality (included in chapter 6 of the Code of Administrative Code).

Non-compliance with administrative limitations established by the court or restrictions should be considered conjugate with the commission of the Russian Federation of offenses listed in Part 2 (for example, small hooliganism, the appearance in in public places in a state of intoxication) if these actions are carried out simultaneously, in particular, these offenses are committed during the location of the person in respect of which the administrative supervision is established, in prohibited places, visits to the venues of mass and other events in the presence of a ban, stay out residential or other premises in the prohibited time of day.

9. To draw the attention of courts to the fact that the circumstances that served as the basis for the establishment of administrative supervision, as well as to attract a person to administrative responsibility in part 1 and part 3 of Article 19.24 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, another article of Chapter 6, 19 or 20 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, are not predetermined The conclusions of the court on the guilt of the defendant in committing a crime provided for in Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which is established on the basis of the entire combination of evidence, proven and evaluated through criminal procedure procedures. If the specified circumstances impede the decision of the sentence, the court returns a criminal case to the prosecutor.

In the same way, it should be done in the case of a criminal case in a special procedure of the trial (chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as Code of Criminal Procedure). In particular, in accordance with Part 7 of Article 316 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the decision to consider the criminal case in the specified The order is assumed only on the condition that the accusation with which the accused, reasonably, evasion of administrative supervision or a repeated non-compliance with the court established by the court in accordance with the Federal Law of restriction or restrictions is confirmed by the evidence collected in the criminal case.

10. By virtue of Article 4.6 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, the person is considered to be administratively punished from the date of entry into force of the appointment administrative punishment Before the expiration of one year from the date of completion of this resolution.

In this regard, when considering criminal cases of crimes provided for by part 2 of Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the court should find out whether the decision was fulfilled on the appointment to the person of the Administrative Punishment in Part 1 and Part 3 of Article 19.24 of the Code of Code of the Russian Federation, another article of chapter 6, 19 or 20 Administrative Code, the expiration date of the specified resolution; whether its execution was discontinued; whether the one was expired during which the person is considered to be administratively punished; Whether the decision was revised to appoint an administrative punishment to the person and subsequent decrees associated with its execution, in the manner prescribed by Chapter 30 of the Code of Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.

11. In determining the territorial jurisdiction of the criminal case on a crime, provided for in Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the place of the commission of such a crime should be considered a place in which administrative supervision should be carried out.

12. If, when considering a criminal case about the crime, provided for in Article 314.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, circumstances that contributed to the commission of such a crime, as well as violations of the law allowed in the production of inquiry or when considering a criminal case by the lower court, the court in accordance with part 4 of the article Code of Code of Criminal Procedure has the right to endure a private definition or a resolution in which to draw the attention of relevant organizations and officials These circumstances and facts of violations of the law requiring the adoption of the necessary measures.

Overview of the document

In certain cases, administrative supervisors are established by persons released from the places of imprisonment. It is associated with some restrictions. Thus, the supervised can be forbidden to attend mass events, leave housing at a certain time of the day, to travel for the established territory. Evasion from administrative supervision or repeated non-compliance with the judgment established by the court or restrictions is a crime.

The Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has explained to consider criminal cases of such crimes.

In particular, it is emphasized that only a person in respect of which administrative supervision is established by the subject of this crime in respect of which the court in the order of administrative proceedings.

Responsibility for non-profit without valid reasons to the elected place of residence or stay within a certain period, as well as for its unauthorized leaving, it comes only when these acts are committed in order to evade administrative supervision.

The act is not a criminal punishable, if the substitute, does not intend to avoid control by the ATS, visited a seriously ill close relative, received emergency medical care that does not find himself in the village where he lives, and so on.

Under the unauthorized leaving of the place of residence or stay, it is necessary to understand the confusion (unwrinking) there and (or) the departure of the territory limits established by the court without the permission of the ATS committed in order to evade administrative supervision.

It is indicated when the act qualifies as a repeated non-compliance with administrative restrictions established by the court or restrictions.