The defendant physically attacked and raped the victim. The court of the first instance found the defendant guilty of rape (part 1 of Article 152 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine - after this The Criminal Code) and sentenced him to three years of imprisonment. However, the appellate court released the defendant from serving the sentence and instead imposed a three-year probationary period (Article 75 of the Criminal Code).
The defendant, a boy under the age of 18 (juvenile: 16-18 years), committed lewd acts against a girl under the age of 14 (minor). The first-instance court imposed a punishment of five years imprisonment (Part 2 of Article 156 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine - Criminal Code). However, the court of first instance released the defendant from serving a sentence and instead imposed a probationary period of two years (Articles 75, 104 of the Criminal Code). The Court of Appeal left the decision unchanged.
While intoxicated, the defendant committed lewd acts against a minor (under 14 years old) by forcing her to expose herself and photographing her naked. He also took the photographs, which were recognized as a pornographic product. According to the courts of the first and second instance, the illegal actions qualified as corruption of a minor (Article 156 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and the production of child pornography for which he was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment.
The plaintiff sued his wife, the defendant, to have his name as the father removed from a birth certificate. The child was born through the use of assisted reproductive technology (“ART”).
The ex-husband (the defendant) systematically committed domestic violence against the complainant – his ex-wife: beating her, threatening to kill her and the children and to burn down the building where she was living with the children). For his illegal behavior (systematic domestic violence), he was jailed for four months (this type of punishment involves keeping a person in isolation for 1-6 months).
The appellant sued his wife, the defendant, with whom he was in a de facto marital relationship (i.e., their marriage was not officially registered), to return funds unjustly acquired by her. According to him, he had won the national lottery and received a prize in the amount of UAH 400,000. While he was abroad, the defendant withdrew these funds from his bank account without his knowledge. The appellant believed that the defendant had no claim to his winnings and that he should get the money back.
The plaintiff turned to court for a restraining order against the defendant, her husband, to keep him away from their joint place of residence and remove obstacles to her using the car that was purchased during their marriage and belonged to the plaintiff. She argued that, although they were officially married, the marital relationship between them had effectively ended. The husband constantly resorted to economic and physical violence against her, taking away funds and preventing her from earning money for her living expenses and treatment on her own.
The husband (the offender) and his wife (the victim) were officially divorced and have not lived together since 2012. The defendant showed up to his ex-wife’s home in an inebriated state four times, using obscenities to insult her and thus intentionally harming her mental health. For three (out of four) of these episodes, the man was fined under Art. 1732 of the Code of Administrative Offenses for domestic violence. Later, the victim reported to the police that her husband committed a crime under Art.
The offender (the man was older than 18 years) repeatedly raped a girl under 14 years of age. The court of first instance sentenced him to nine years in prison (isolation for a certain period of time in a closed-type penal institution). When determining the sentence, the court took into account what it considered to be mitigating circumstances, namely: (i) sincere remorse; (ii) partial payment of damages; (iii) admission of guilt; (iv) no prior criminal record.
The mother of minors (the plaintiff) had been convicted for committing a criminal offense. After serving her sentence, the plaintiff asked the child services agency to return her children to her; their grandmother had been appointed as their guardian as a way of protecting the rights and interests of the children. According to the plaintiff, after her release she got a job and a room in a dormitory, and she wanted to be allowed to raise her children on her own.
