According to data published in the State Register of Judicial Acts, Alan [name changed A.E.Z.] was sent to the Issyk-Ata district for an audit of the financial and economic activities of the education department based on an order from the chairman of the Audit Chamber, as outlined in the work plan.
During the audit, it was established that Alan extorted a bribe of 200,000 soms from the employees of the district education department for a favorable conclusion based on the audit results.
According to the investigation materials, the economist of the education department, G.B., agreed to hand over the money, fearing negative consequences. At the same time, she informed the State National Security Committee about Alan's intention to take a bribe.
Thus, around 6:00 PM on one of the days, Alan, carrying out his criminal intentions, accepted a bribe of 200,000 soms from G.B. near a restaurant. Shortly after this, as a result of operational-search activities, he was detained by national security officials at the scene of the crime.
The Issyk-Ata District Court found Alan guilty under Article 342 of the Criminal Code ("Receiving a bribe in a large amount") and sentenced him to two years of imprisonment with confiscation of property, as well as deprivation of the right to hold certain positions.
According to Article 80 of the Criminal Code, the time spent in custody before the sentence comes into legal force will be counted towards the total term of punishment on the principle that one day in custody equals two days of imprisonment.
The measure of restraint in the form of detention for Alan was left unchanged until the sentence comes into legal force.
The Judicial Panel for Criminal Cases and Administrative Offenses of the Chui Regional Court confirmed the district court's decision.
The lawyer representing the convicted person's interests filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court, requesting the annulment of the Issyk-Ata District Court's sentence and the imposition of a penalty corresponding to half of the minimum term provided by law.
The senior prosecutor also filed a cassation petition, demanding the annulment of the lower courts' sentences due to incorrect application of substantive law and the referral of the case for a new hearing in the first instance court.
The Supreme Court decided to leave the decisions of both courts unchanged. The cassation appeals from both the lawyer and the prosecutor were rejected.
The ruling is final and not subject to appeal.
