- The data for this case was obtained from the State Register of Judicial Acts.
The court established that the defendant, abusing the trust of the victim, took possession of two cars under various pretenses. He then sold these cars to third parties and spent the proceeds on his needs, resulting in significant material damage to the victim.
In the first instance, the defendant was found guilty and received a sentence of imprisonment, but with probation supervision, and was also ordered to pay 900,000 soms to the victim.
The defendant M. N. has a secondary education, is divorced, is the father of three children, is unemployed, and has a prior criminal record.
The victim filed an appeal, pointing out the insufficient severity of the punishment and the lack of compensation for damages. The defense of the defendant, in turn, insisted on overturning the verdict and closing the case.
The appellate panel concluded that probation was applied without proper grounds and without considering the victim's opinion, as well as the public danger of the crime. As a result, the court canceled the probation supervision, imposing a sentence of three years of imprisonment and leaving the measure of restraint in the form of detention. The amount of damages remained unchanged.
The ruling came into legal force immediately and can be appealed in cassation.
Events:
On February 10, 2024, at around 10:00, the defendant M. N., deceiving his acquaintance, a resident of Kochkor-Ata, A. S., born in 1983, promised to return her "DAEWOO Lanos" car (worth 170,000 soms) and drove away with it. He then sold this car for 80,000 soms to D. A. E., born in 1988, who is engaged in car resale, and spent the money on his needs. As a result, A. S. suffered significant damage amounting to 170,000 soms, which was, however, compensated during the investigation.
Not stopping there, M. N. continued his fraudulent actions. On February 20, 2024, at around 20:00, again deceiving A. S., he took possession of her 2018 "Hyundai Sonata" car (worth 900,000 soms), promising to return it after a trip to Jalal-Abad. However, the car was not returned, resulting in damage of 900,000 soms.
First Instance Court Decision:
On March 3, 2025, the Nooken District Court released M. N. in the courtroom under probation supervision and ordered him to pay 900,000 soms to the victim A. S., assigning probation control to the probation authorities of the Bazar-Korgon district.
Appeals from Both Parties:
Dissatisfied with the court's decision, the victim A. S. filed an appeal, pointing out the sale of her "DAEWOO Lanos" for 80,000 soms and the theft of the "Hyundai Sonata" worth 900,000 soms. The victim noted that the current market value of the "Hyundai Sonata" is 1,160,000 soms. She requested to change the verdict and impose a sentence of 3 years of imprisonment on the defendant, as well as to recover 1,160,000 soms from him. At the same time, the defendant's lawyer I. A. filed an appeal, claiming that the "DAEWOO Lanos" had been returned, and the parties had reached a reconciliation, therefore requesting to overturn the verdict and close the case.
No objections to the appeals were raised.
Marriage Proposal:
At the hearing, the victim A. S. reported that the defendant M. N. came to her home with his mother, deceiving her about his family circumstances, and asked for her hand in marriage. Convincing the victim of his intentions, she agreed to marry him. After that, M. N. continued to deceive her regarding the cars, took the documents, and left for Russia without compensating for the damages.
Course of Court Proceedings:
At the hearing, lawyer B. A. pointed out that the defendant had changed his name and surname to evade responsibility. He requested to cancel the probation supervision and satisfy the victim's claims. The defendant M. N. admitted his guilt and apologized, explaining that he sold the cars for repairs after a traffic accident. His lawyer A. N. added that the victim did not provide evidence of moral damage and requested to dismiss the victim's appeal.
The state prosecutor T. K. noted that the first instance court did not consider the victim's opinion and that M. N.'s guilt was proven. He requested to change the verdict, imposing imprisonment.
Conclusion:
The crime is classified as fraud related to the appropriation of someone else's property through deception. The judicial panel, having analyzed all the circumstances, concluded that the first instance court imposed an excessively lenient punishment, not taking into account the severity of the crime and the victim's opinion. The regional court decided to change the verdict of the Nooken District Court, partially satisfying the victim's appeal and leaving the defense's appeal unsatisfied (probation supervision canceled, 3 years of imprisonment imposed, the amount of material damage remained unchanged).
