The Supreme Federal Court rejected a defendant's appeal against a three-year suspended prison sentence, as he was convicted of violating the privacy of a woman, and defaming her through the "Snapchat" program, where he installed a video of her with the intention of joking and laughing.
In detail, the Public Prosecution referred a person to trial, who used a Snapchat information system to amend an advertisement video of a woman with intent to abuse, demanding that he be punished in accordance with Article 21/2 of a Federal Law Decree on combating information technology crimes.
The suspect admitted in the investigations that he installed a video on a clip of the complainant, and published it in his account on the "Snapchat" program, with the intention of laughing and joking.
The Federal Misdemeanor Court sentenced the defendant to one year in prison with an order to suspend the punishment for a period of three years from the date the judgment became final, and was confirmed by the Appeal Court.
The defendant was not satisfied with this ruling, and he appealed to him before the Federal Supreme Court, explaining that he had adhered to the expiry of the criminal lawsuit by the complainant's waiver of the communication, the subject of the lawsuit, by a declaration he submitted to the court.
The Supreme Federal Court rejected this appeal, explaining that “assignments were confined by Article 16 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by saying (for those who filed a complaint about the crimes referred to in Article 10 of this law to waive the complaint at any time before the case issued a final ruling ", Adding that" the tenth article clarified the complaints complaints exclusively, and none of them assaulted the privacy of others through the means of information technology, which the complainant does not have to waive. "
The court indicated that the appeal judgment adhered to the correct law and the defendant's indecent assault became unfounded.
The court rejected what the accused mentioned in his appeal that the crime assigned to him left its material and moral pillars, and that he did not amend the declaration, but rather commented on it, after he discovered some linguistic errors, and that what he did was not intended to defame or offend it, and that what Do is legal criticism.
She clarified that it is decided in the court’s judiciary to obtain an understanding of the reality in the lawsuit, estimate the evidence presented therein, and weight between it and take what it deems appropriate from the court of the subject and has the right to extract the correct picture of the case, and it is not obligated to follow the opponents in their various statements and aspects of their defense and respond independently to each defense Or a statement that raised it when the truth was convinced of it and its evidence cited the implicit response to these statements, and there is no censor for it when it was justified, and it has an estimate of the defendant’s confession at any stage of the investigation or reasoning, and that he takes it even if the defendant has changed it, in the foregratory crimes When do i It is safe for his health, and that he issued a free will of choice, identical to the reality of the case.
The court ended up confirming that if the appeals court considers supporting the preliminary ruling for the reasons on which it is based, then there is nothing in the law that requires it to mention those reasons in its ruling. Rather, it is sufficient for it to refer to it, as referring to the reasons is based on its revenue and indicates that the court considered it as issued. about her.
It concluded that the appeal verdict clarified the fact of the lawsuit with all the legal elements of the crime to which the accused was convicted, and provided evidence against him of evidence against it that would lead to its rank.