An admission of guilt does not replace examination of disputed facts

Positions of the trial and appellate courts: the lower courts found the defendant guilty and convicted him under Article 409(4) of the Criminal Code. The trial judgment was delivered using the procedure under Article 349(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Position of the Criminal Cassation Court: the lower courts’ decisions were set aside and a retrial was ordered before the court of first instance.

Reasoning of the Criminal Cassation Court: the panel stated that Article 349(4) requires the defendant to be questioned unless they refuse to testify or the exceptions in Article 323(3) or Article 381 apply.

A full admission of guilt, acceptance of the factual circumstances and legal classification, correct understanding and awareness of the allegations and the legal consequences of the simplified procedure, and the absence of doubts about the voluntary nature of the defendant’s position are mandatory prerequisites for proceeding under Article 349(3). If a party disputes even one circumstance requiring proof, it must be examined at trial. This does not preclude applying Article 349(3) to other, undisputed circumstances.

According to the hearing’s audio recording, the defendant told the presiding judge that he understood the substance of the charge and admitted guilt. After hearing the prosecutor’s position on the order and scope of the evidence, the presiding judge explained the consequences of proceeding under Article 349(3), including that the judgment could then be appealed only as to the type and length of sentence and the legal classification of his conduct.

However, when questioned by the prosecutor, the defendant said that he had not actually evaded military duties. He had serious combat injuries that had not fully healed, and obtaining the military medical commission’s opinion had facilitated discharge on health grounds. He did not consider the opinion submitted to the unit to be forged. His testimony showed that he admitted only the circumstances of obtaining and submitting that opinion, while disputing the objective and subjective elements alleged in the indictment: evading military duties through another form of deception by submitting a document providing grounds for discharge.

Despite that testimony, the court did not consider changing the procedure for examining evidence. It continued under the simplified procedure, examining, besides the defendant’s testimony, only evidence concerning his personal circumstances. It then adjourned for the parties to prepare closing arguments and subsequently convicted him, declaring the alleged conduct proved without establishing at trial the circumstances that required proof under Article 91 but that he had disputed during questioning.

The panel disagreed with the trial court’s approach because it was contrary to Article 349 and demonstrated non-compliance with criminal procedural law.