In Dnipro, a man attacked a military enlistment center serviceman with a knife, claiming he was saving his son from mobilization: court verdict

In Dnipro, the court sentenced a man who, during the verification of military registration documents, stabbed a serviceman of the district territorial recruitment and social support center with a knife. The accused explained that he was trying to protect his son, who, according to him, suffered severe injuries and lost an eye after being held captive by Russia. The court found the man guilty of intentionally causing minor bodily harm to a person performing a public duty and sentenced him to three years of restricted freedom. At the same time, he was released from serving the sentence with a probation period of two years.

Circumstances of the case

The court established that on March 6, 2026, servicemen of the district territorial recruitment and social support center were notifying military reservists, handing out summonses, and checking military registration documents in Dnipro. Near one of the buildings, they stopped a man to check his documents. The accused was nearby.

According to case materials 199/3806/26, both knew that the people in front of them were servicemen performing a public duty. During the conflict, the accused took out a folding knife and struck one of the servicemen in the left thigh.

As a result, the victim received a stab wound to the back of the left thigh. Forensic medical examination classified this injury as minor bodily harm, causing a short-term health disorder lasting more than six days but not more than three weeks.

What the accused explained

In the court session, the man fully admitted his guilt.

According to him, that day he was passing by the scene with his son. Seeing the servicemen of the recruitment center, he shouted to his son to run away. After that, a scuffle broke out between him and the servicemen. The accused claimed that he was grabbed and held, and while bent over, he took a folding knife from his pocket and dealt one blow to the victim.

He also explained that he acted trying to protect his son, who, according to him, had been in Russian captivity since the beginning of the full-scale war, suffered numerous injuries, and lost an eye. Additionally, the accused noted that he himself had a deferment from conscription and also sustained injuries during the conflict, including fractures of two ribs.

The man reported that he compensated the victim for material and moral damages amounting to 15,000 UAH, after which they reconciled.

Court’s position

The court concluded that the accused’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. His actions were qualified under Part 2 of Article 350 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine as intentional infliction of minor bodily harm to a person performing a public duty in connection with the performance of such duty.

The court noted that the victim was performing mobilization measures as part of the recruitment center group at the time of the incident. Therefore, the accused’s actions were qualified under the special provision — Part 2 of Article 350 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

When imposing the sentence, the court took into account that the accused had no prior convictions, fully admitted guilt, sincerely repented, actively assisted in solving the crime, voluntarily compensated the victim for the damage caused, was officially employed, had a positive character reference, supported a minor daughter, and suffered from several chronic diseases.

The court also considered that after compensation, the victim had no claims against the accused and requested the mildest punishment. The court did not find any aggravating circumstances.

Court decision

The Amur-Nyzhnodniprovskyi District Court of Dnipro found the man guilty of committing a criminal offense under Part 2 of Article 350 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and sentenced him to three years of restricted freedom.

At the same time, under Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the court released him from serving the sentence with probation, setting a probation period of two years. During this period, the convicted person is obliged to periodically report to the probation authority, notify about changes in residence or work, and not leave Ukraine without the consent of the authorized probation body.

The court also recovered 4,011.30 UAH from the convicted for court examination expenses, canceled the arrest on the seized property, and decided on the fate of the physical evidence.

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