The second-instance council at the Szeged Regional Court altered the Szeged District Court’s first-instance verdict in the case of the accused Z. V. and his accomplices, who are under procedure because of commiting theft and other crimes in complicity. The second-instance council aggravated J. M. second-degree and Cs. M. third-degree defendants' prison sentence from 3 years to 3 years and 6 months, but lowered their penalty of driving prohibition from 3 years to 1 year and 6 months.

According to the legally binding verdict’s factual stance, Z. V. first-degree accused and his two accomplices showed up ont he periphery of Kistelek early morning on June 25th, 2013 in order to appropriate 330 meters of overhead cable belonging to a telecommunication company. One of the defendants climbed up the pole, which held the cables and cut them down with a power tool, then got them down to his accomplices to roll them up. The defendants were int he middle of preparing the 568.920.- forints worth of cables for transportation, when a police officer caught them in the act. The officer warned them to stop and surrender, but the defendants started to run. The first-degree accused fell down and his accomplices turned around to help him. When the police officer kneeled on the fallen defendant’s back in order to put handcuffs on him, the other two men ran in his direction and they wouldn’t stop at warning. The officer fired a targeted shot on the second-degree accused, which hit him in the shoulder. Even so, the two defendants carried on, threw the officer off of their accomplice, then started hiting and kicking him all over his body, causing him serious injuries. After that, the police captured the fleeing defendants.

It couldn't be defined without doubt whether or not the first-degree accused was obstructing the police officer's legal procedure or if he participated in the beating.

On one hand, the first-instance court sentenced the first-degree accused, Z. V. to 1 year in prison and prohibited him from practicing public affairs for a year, on the other hand the accused got acquitted of the charges of assault against an officer and aggravated assault. Z. M. and Cs. M., second- and third-degree defendants got sentenced – as cumulative punishment – to 3 years in prison and got prohibited from practicing public affairs for 3 years for the attempt of felony theft in complicity, for felony assault against an officer and for felony aggravated assault, also in complicity. All three defendants got driving prohibition for the duration of 3 years.

The first-instance court's verdict became final regarding Z. V. first-degree accused.

The prosecutor appealed for aggravation – longer prison time – regarding the second- and third-degree defendants. The second-degree accused and his defender announced appeal for mitigation, especially for getting acquitted of the charge of aggravated assault.

Compared to the result of the public session held regarding the case, the second-instance court adjudicated the first-instance court's decision and stated that the district court deducted correctly to the defendants' guilt from the established factual stance. Nonetheless, the tribunal evaluated another aggravating circumstance too: the second- and third-degree defendants commited these current crimes not long after being – not bindingly – sentenced to prison, so the tribunal extended their prison sentence, but reduced the duration of their driving prohibition, because it was disproportionate.