Ex-politician from Traunviertel (Upper Austria) had to go to court in Steyr again. One of his victims had suffered serious physical injuries, which only now became clear. The trial division saved him a lot of time in prison, but the suspect also did not accept the lenient sentence.
Women were secretly filmed in the public toilet in Weyregg am Attersee, one woman was abused and filmed at home. For this, a 62-year-old former municipal councilor from the Traunviertel was sentenced by the Steyr regional court to 30 months, ten of which were “severe”. He served his sentence, was released early, had to surrender his driver’s license for three months and will get it back the following Monday. But in this process one fact remained unanswered. A second victim who was sexually abused independently of the other while drunk; the suspect had taken the drunk woman home after a party and took advantage of her situation. But it was unclear whether there were serious physical injuries.
Consideration of previous judgment
The report now confirms: psychological consequences – depression and post-traumatic disorder – lasting longer than 24 days and therefore serious physical harm. This crime carries a minimum sentence of five years. “The division of the trial is not pleasant for the public prosecutor,” the public prosecutor said at the hearing. Because the judge must ‘take into account’ the previous verdict. The lawyer demanded a suspended sentence because the suspect followed all instructions, fully confessed and cooperated in the investigation. The abuse video was found on him when police investigated the toilet photos. The woman had not noticed the crime! Even the victim’s representative, who struggled with psychological problems and alcohol abuse before the crime, demanded little to no prison time: “Otherwise my client will have to wait a long time for her money.” He demanded 10,000 euros, 3,000 euros was paid. .
Teichtmeister comparison
The judge did not follow a comparison with Florian Teichtmeister, who was punished more leniently due to “public exclusion”.
But due to the first ruling, it was again only 30 months, ten of which were unconditional. This results in a five-year prison sentence, but two ten-month prison sentences. With good behavior, this means hardly more than a year behind bars. Otherwise, it is common for parole to be granted only after half of the sentence; in this case that would be at least two and a half years in prison. The mild verdict is not yet legally binding.
Source: Krone
I am Wallace Jones, an experienced journalist. I specialize in writing for the world section of Today Times Live. With over a decade of experience, I have developed an eye for detail when it comes to reporting on local and global stories. My passion lies in uncovering the truth through my investigative skills and creating thought-provoking content that resonates with readers worldwide.
