A police officer was sentenced to four months imprisonment for a case of embezzlement through false representations, but he considered his sentence excessive and appealed before the Supreme Court.
According to the Supreme Court's decision, the police officer used his position to deceive two citizens. Specifically, he took €950 from the first citizen and €1,150 from the second citizen, pretending that he would secure a specific vehicle for them from a police-seized vehicles auction.
The convicted officer, among other arguments, appealed claiming that the trial court: "did not give due weight to mitigating factors and circumstances."
According to the Supreme Court's decision as recorded: "The confession had significant importance but was not immediate. There was a delay in handling the case, partly due to the Appeals Court. The complainants were compensated, but it was done four or more years after the crimes were committed, approximately two months before the Appeals Court admitted the charges. Furthermore, the Appeals Court had a clean criminal record and had received congratulations and accolades in the performance of its duties, including a medal of honor for saving two individuals from drowning at sea. The court also took into account the appellant's family circumstances. The Appeals Court was divorced and a father of two children. As mentioned in the decision, all these circumstances were considered by the trial court."
The Supreme Court also notes that the police officer in question exploited his position, acted convincingly, and embezzled the monetary amounts.
As the trial court specifically stated, "he fabricated an entire story and its details to convince" and acted with premeditation.
"The commission of crimes by authorities entrusted with law enforcement undermines public trust in institutions. Especially when it involves offenses that include dishonesty and exploitation of the position of power for personal gain," emphasizes the Supreme Court, adding, "This is how the Appeals Court acted. In two cases, moreover."
In conclusion, the decision of the Supreme Court rejected the appeal, stating, "We do not find any grounds that would justify our intervention in the outcome of the trial court to suspend the imprisonment sentence imposed on the appellant."
[With information sourced from 24 News]
