English Translation

24lm! 131 6.j-21104/33 KRAJSKY TJUD TRESTN Tk X1 2141132 V Praze 0oSL0:21PROSICE 1933 KRAT. 32 pälo On behalf of the Republic! The Supreme Court didn't know the reverse court today, on 30 October I933, after a non-public trial in the public court sitting about the confusion of the prosecutor until the judgment of the Regional Probe Criminal in Prague of 1 December 1932, no. Tk XII al4l/32-27, others were Dr Jan Karlfk a ž. Václav Šiwel, pursuant to ğn 259 no. 2 tr. acquiescence of the indictment for a felony according to Τn ll No. 2 cu- per ochr. repe, - as so right: Zuateční ştíănost, if an adjective statement exonerating the bathed inž. Václava ğiwela, is inflamed. Equally the misconception is rejected by në suspended sentences " Namentlichessch die Bezeichnung ... tatsächlich Tabu ist " page 63 of the pause file- M Opposite tomn so suits confusional complaint if it objects to the finding of the court exonerating the defendant Dr Jan Karlik in the princi vëta: " Und es gibt nritte .... zum Prisidenstuhl " p. 58 it- him the file, the judgment under appeal is annulled in this part and the matter is returned to the court in order to renegotiate and decide it in the extent of the annulment. Dūvody: Regarding the sentence contained in the pre- suspended file " Wie man z. B....... gegenseitige Wirkung erzielen " finds out the verdict that only the defendant Václav Siwel, not Dr Jane Karlík, can be held responsible for the place. In all other respects, the sentence in this regard is dealt only with the defendant's fault. This statement, with regard to the defendant Jan Karlík, is not contradicted by the complaint and has therefore been delivered by the acquitted Dr Jan Karlik in the cause of this sentence of legal authority. On this point, Václav Šiwel rests on the idea that, after the obiective side, this expression is not considered to be, however, compared with the fate of Caydov with the destiny of the president of the Republic, the honour of the President of the Ublika is not seriously affected, without this being ridiculed. All you can say is that this statement rests on my-lén's proposition of the law, since the same paragraph, namely the same fate of Gajdaı, evidently contains the noun of the President of the Reptility according to ğu ll. 2 cust. na ochr. rep.. Even if it could be seen in this part of the rebuttal carried out by 8 confusions No 9 a/ §u 28l tr. corresponding to Regulation No 2 nov. k tr., it would not be possible to comply with the misadventure complaint. After all, the finding of the somd reveals as the meaning of this väta that the failing facts are listed as the advantages of both men, and it would therefore be known difficulty to carry out the material law of confusion in accordance with No. 9a/ § 28l tr., based on this finding, which does not in any formal way attack. Thus, the complaint does not make and therefore does not pursue the applied reason for confusion after the law. After all, it would not be possible to dismiss the confusion of complaints already for the same reason, because it contradicts the other content of the judgments, if the court rules out the substance of ğu ll no. cust. na ochr. rep. i posoblivivní. There goes totiż judgment on No. 63 nahore,