STÁTNÍ TAJEMNÍK U ŘÍŠSKÉHO PROTEKTORA V ČECHÁCH A NA MORAVĚ, PRAHA, inv. 2253, sig. 109-11/54 Page 38 · 38 of 104
STATE SECRETARY FOR THE RUSSIAN PROTECTOR IN THINGS AND IN MORAVA, PRAGUE, inv. 2253, sig. 109-11/54
English Translation
29 was,-it was right at the beginning of the war-under a certain hardship, which was then at least partially remedied by the state support.Finally, the whole damage has now been replaced by that. In such circumstances, the Court of Appeal held that in the most serious case/Haberzettl/ a prison sentence of 3 months was due=.In the cases of Tomann and Judas, where the amounts were close to the same, a prison penalty of 2 months each was found to be forfeited in the case of Heindl. According to the already mentioned statutory provision of § 27 b STGB. This question is to be answered in the affirmative.To the numerous criminally mitigating circumstances comes to the conclusion that nothing has emerged, which could be concluded that the accused has lived lightly on it with the help of the stolen money. It should also be borne in mind that her spouse has moved in and has to provide for her 6 year old child. For the last three cases, fines had to be set instead of the forfeited prison sentence and the creation of an overall penalty could no longer take place. §§ 74.78 STGB/ According to § 27 e STPO., the economic circumstances of the offender should be taken into account when calculating a financial penalty. Since the defendant is directed to the assistance of her husband's military service and is also compensated for the damage caused, despite the provision of paragraph II of section 27c, money= could be measured under the profit which the defendant had taken out of the act. In view of the bad economic relations of the defendants, she was allowed to pay the money in instalments in accordance with § 28 STGB.