“I took a look on this case with the aim that I could spark discussion about it and Specialised Court will present its arguments,” Samko said, as quoted by the daily. “Maybe it decided in right way but I think that it is not in line with the legislation.”
The lawsuit against Krajník was filed for the continued crime of accepting a bribe and the attempted misdemeanor of abusing the power of a public official. Originally he faced imprisonment of between five and 12 years.
By making a plea deal with the prosecutor, the punishment was reduced by one-third. Krajník pled guilty and had to pay a fine of €5,000.
Samko now claims that this verdict is wrong and that law does not enable such enormous mitigation of sentence – as if there were some huge extenuating circumstances, but there were none.
Instead of three years of conditional sentence, Krajník should have got three years and three months; and over three years, there is no conditional sentence possible. However, Krajník’s verdict is effective and cannot be overturned.
19. May 2015 at 22:03 | Compiled by Spectator staff