Man took delicacies worth 10,000 UAH due to a quarrel with his girlfriend: what verdict the court in Cherkasy region issued for accidental theft

The legal regime of martial law in Ukraine has significantly increased liability for property crimes. According to changes in the Criminal Code, committing theft during this period automatically classifies the offense as a serious crime under part 4 of article 185 of the Criminal Code. However, as court practice shows, judges assess the degree of social danger differently: from actual imprisonment for theft from a wounded person to probation for stolen products from supermarkets.

Basket of delicacies in a supermarket

The incident took place in the city of Kaniv inside a supermarket. The accused, a technician at a local confectionery factory, spent almost an hour and a half gathering goods. The assortment of products was quite diverse: from pitahaya, avocado, and seafood cocktails to household items such as an induction stove frying pan. The total value of the stolen goods amounted to 10,253.45 hryvnias.

At the court hearing, the accused fully admitted guilt. His defense was based on the absence of direct mercenary intent at the moment of gathering the goods. He claimed that he was in a depressed state due to a quarrel with his girlfriend and, while talking on the phone, automatically exited the store past the checkout area through the shutters.

However, legally this argument is nullified by the fact that he went home with the goods and did not try to return and pay for them later. The accused repeatedly came to the store after this incident but did not attempt to pay for the previously stolen goods because he did not have enough money and hoped he was not noticed. The court qualified these actions precisely as secret theft of property under martial law conditions.

Why the accused avoided imprisonment for theft under martial law conditions

When issuing the verdict, the court recognized that the accused's actions fall under part 4 of article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — theft committed under martial law conditions. The sanction of this article provides for punishment in the form of imprisonment for a term of 5 to 8 years, and the crime itself, according to article 12 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, belongs to the category of serious crimes.

At the same time, the court took into account a number of mitigating circumstances. In particular, the accused fully admitted his guilt, sincerely repented, and voluntarily compensated the supermarket for the damages caused. The representative of the victim confirmed the fact of compensation and asked the court not to impose a severe punishment.

No aggravating circumstances provided for by article 67 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine were established during the case consideration.

The court separately assessed the personality of the accused. The case materials show that he had no previous convictions, has a permanent job at the confectionery factory, is positively characterized at work, and is not registered with a psychiatrist or narcologist.

Considering the combination of these circumstances, the court concluded that the correction of the accused is possible without isolation from society. In the court's opinion, applying a probation period will be sufficient to achieve the purpose of punishment and prevent new offenses.

Shopping at a self-checkout

A similar case No. 397/383/25 was considered by the Oleksandrivskyi District Court of Kirovohrad region.

The accused in the store took a huge assortment of goods ranging from Christmas gnomes and chocolate to a computer mouse and nail gels totaling 3,234.19 UAH. He pretended to scan the goods at the self-checkout, put everything in bags, and left without paying.

During the case consideration, the court took into account that an agreement on guilt recognition was concluded between the prosecutor and the accused. The accused fully admitted his guilt and agreed with the circumstances of the criminal offense.

Among the mitigating circumstances, the court considered the presence of a minor child of the accused, sincere remorse, and full compensation for the damage caused to the store.

After verifying the conditions of the agreement and ensuring that it complies with the law and does not violate the rights of the parties, the court approved it.

As a result, the accused was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment, but based on the provisions of the Criminal Code, he was released from serving the sentence with probation. The court set a probation period of 2 years.

This case reminds us that "martial law" in crime qualification is not a formality but an aggravating legal context that turns a minor offense into a serious criminal problem, even if you just "got distracted talking on the phone."

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp pages, on Facebook and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.