A man from Opavsk ate a baguette and a croissant, drank beer and threw popsicles out of the freezers. He got two years

The crime took place at the end of September last year. A man broke into a local store in Vítkov at night, where he not only started feasting, but also broke equipment, including a freezer.

As a recidivist, the courts sentenced him to two years in prison. The man argued in vain that he was in an “insane affective state”, because a moment earlier he had fought in a local bar and received a few blows to the head during the fight.

In the appeal, he claimed that the courts should have allowed him to be examined by an expert.

“He found out, but his judgment was affected by the blows to the head. He did not go to the store with the intention of stealing, i.e. to take something, he damaged the goods and equipment precisely because he received blows to the head,” his lawyer wrote in the appeal, stating that the man should not be tried for theft, as he did not take anything from the store.

He also disputed that he was supposed to pay damages for the thousands of destroyed popsicles, and claimed that the freezer certainly couldn’t fit that many.

The Senate of the Supreme Court, headed by Petr Šabata, did not listen to the objections.

“Although the accused describes his actions as acting on a rampage, according to the records of the camera system from the store and his actions after his arrest, when he testified about his actions in a completely understandable manner, he confessed to the actions, as well as to the consumption of alcohol and the use of marijuana, nothing appears, which would indicate that his actions were influenced by a mental disorder,” the judges wrote, noting that the man also underwent a CT scan after his arrest, which revealed no brain injury.

“The fact that the accused technically did not take anything from the store is not decisive in the present case. The decisive factor here is how he handled the items in the store, when it is quite clear that he destroyed or vandalized some of the store’s goods and equipment, appropriated some of them and treated them as his own when he consumed them,” the judges added.