The Court of Appeals upheld the 18-month prison sentence imposed on a man for the theft of an electric moped, with the Court ruling that the commission of another offense following the theft—which the convicted man also admitted to—constituted an aggravating factor and precluded a suspended sentence.
The Court of Appeals’ decision, dated September 24, 2026, concerns a case involving the theft of an electric scooter valued at €1,500. When the trial court imposed the sentence, it had also taken into account two other cases to which the appellant had pleaded guilty: one for receiving a stolen electric scooter valued at €470 and the other for obtaining a loan of €134.50 through false representations.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
The trial court sentenced him to 18 months in prison and ordered the sentence to be carried out immediately. Before the Court of Appeals, the appellant initially argued that the sentence was excessive; however, this specific ground for appeal was withdrawn during the hearing. The appeal was thus limited to the second ground, according to which the trial court should have suspended the prison sentence, on the grounds that it had not properly exercised its discretion in ordering its immediate enforcement.
The appellant’s counsel argued that greater weight should have been given to his clean criminal record, his admission of the offenses, his remorse, and the fact that the stolen goods had been located and returned to their owners. It was also argued that immediate imprisonment would have particularly onerous consequences for him and his family.
For his part, the prosecutor placed particular emphasis on the appellant’s conduct following the theft of the moped. As stated in the decision, the theft was committed in June 2024, while in November 2024 the appellant committed the offense of obtaining credit under false pretenses, which he admitted and which was taken into account when imposing the sentence in the contested decision. The defense counsel stated that “the appellant’s conduct following the commission of the offense in this case is an aggravating factor and deprives him of any basis for expecting a suspension of the prison sentence imposed.”
The Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court had taken into account all relevant factors, including the seriousness of the offenses, the appellant’s personal circumstances, his clean criminal record, his admission of guilt, and the return of the stolen goods.
However, it noted that these factors could not lead to a suspension of the sentence, pointing out that “the appellant’s personal circumstances, including the mitigating factors in his favor (clean criminal record, admission of guilt, return of the items), cannot outweigh the public interest, which requires the imposition of deterrent sentences, both because of the seriousness of the offenses the appellant has admitted to committing and because of the current surge in offenses of this nature.”
The Court of Appeals placed particular emphasis on the commission of the second offense following the theft, ruling that the appellant’s subsequent conduct was an aggravating factor. “His conduct following the commission of the offense at issue in this case is an aggravating factor and, under the circumstances, did not justify suspending the execution of the sentence imposed on him,” it states.
At the same time, the Court of Appeals noted that the decision to suspend a sentence falls within the discretion of the trial court and that each case must be judged based on its specific circumstances.
In conclusion, it upheld the trial court’s decision to order immediate imprisonment, noting that the appellant’s conduct “demonstrates that it in no way justified the suspension of the prison sentences imposed on him.”
Consequently, the Court of Appeals rejected the ground for appeal concerning the suspension of the sentence and upheld the trial court’s decision in its entirety.
Source: CNA
